From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-170.mta1.migadu.com (out-170.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CE6A1DEFE0 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 23:49:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.170 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738021772; cv=none; b=lZjCZnE8jI3MHaW9luxShuhC3yjlPHjLWOs687mhH4QHXA2RrC60rbyYeDBrM1ncOh+lUfhirIHvYifXGK5lSO8YnmCoH5UDTgAMVi83hNhBgrUBeF9QdoKVHHOtwc4+xiG36CvmFiDLEhcm/X7jAEp7Jmqy79524Hx8d1Jlsqs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738021772; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Wug4EIeroYZndVC7OL5mnL3RcMhWzGB8loZOhEODuWc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=h7MLcwMPS6h7UjT9p+gStqPXK9nN42qDFX8BeizyNiT7UdlgOwoAm9qFtJXHyS17n3duWN1pcEinkkTxOyMdO3+YaHVJHVtm1VD/w49hshKeDjR77bQaNQYrGbL0CtCGn6DTF2ycrQ2nCUsynJmI2kNgIYDur6PWW7JWblGBpZI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=LAj94sC8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.170 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="LAj94sC8" Message-ID: <29073a9e-23ea-49c2-b0ad-d33bd3ea8974@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1738021758; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/Cf8t8KvGnVwEnZDGe23gVm6BJc7rV7hvjPh/EJvHtE=; b=LAj94sC8tFbOOEha7UpKHkhk6QrKQ94hhVLYOTb2Q7C9DsHISMpGXU7lGGAlKXblNuayL8 KUaiyed3OE/mHNbsEh2DAqCaVJEpI1lkbpzfQFxsUFMQqkiQD73Bh4CusFY6L7O/ATFABm UCuMWqEwj4JiuijC0blpAIFNsQOYf/g= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:49:11 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 13/13] bpf: add simple bpf tests in the tx path for so_timestamping feature To: Jason Xing Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, dsahern@kernel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, willemb@google.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, horms@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org References: <20250121012901.87763-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> <20250121012901.87763-14-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> <564d8d62-3148-41a1-ae08-ed4ad08996d3@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 1/24/25 7:42 PM, Jason Xing wrote: >> Please also add some details on how the UDP BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_TCP_SND_CB (or to be >> renamed to BPF_SOCK_OPS_TS_SND_CB ?) will look like. It is the only callback >> that I don't have a clear idea for UDP. > I think I will rename it as you said. But I wonder if I can add more > details about UDP after this series gets merged which should not be > too late. After this series, I will carefully consider and test how we > use for UDP type. Not asking for a full UDP implementation, having this set staying with TCP is ok. We have pretty clear idea on all the new TS_*_CB will work in UDP except the TS_SND_CB. I am asking at least a description on where this SND hook will be in UDP and how the delay will be measured from the udp_sendmsg(). I haven't looked, so the question. It is better to get some visibility first instead of scrambling to change it after landing to -next.