On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 11:57 PM Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Le 31/08/2022 à 23:57, Florian Westphal a écrit : > > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> This helps gradually moving towards move epbf for those that > >>> still heavily rely on the classic forwarding path. > >> > >> No one is using it. > >> If it was, we would have seen at least one bug report over > >> all these years. We've seen none. > > > > Err, it IS used, else I would not have sent this patch. > > > >> very reasonable early on and turned out to be useless with > >> zero users. > >> BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_ACT and BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT* > >> are in this category. > > > > I doubt it had 0 users. Those users probably moved to something > > better? > We are using BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_ACT to perform custom encapsulations. > What could we used to replace that? SCHED_CLS. It has all of the features of cls and act combined.
