From: Kui-Feng Lee <sinquersw@gmail.com>
To: thinker.li@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
andrii@kernel.org, drosen@google.com
Cc: kuifeng@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 00/10] Registrating struct_ops types from modules
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:23:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f525126-92cd-4559-9128-894f0d9be512@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231027205227.855463-1-thinker.li@gmail.com>
Sorry for sending out this thread by a mistake!
I have resent v7 as
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231027211702.1374597-1-thinker.li@gmail.com
On 10/27/23 13:52, thinker.li@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Kui-Feng Lee <thinker.li@gmail.com>
>
> Given the current constraints of the current implementation,
> struct_ops cannot be registered dynamically. This presents a
> significant limitation for modules like coming fuse-bpf, which seeks
> to implement a new struct_ops type. To address this issue, a new API
> is introduced that allows the registration of new struct_ops types
> from modules.
>
> Previously, struct_ops types were defined in bpf_struct_ops_types.h
> and collected as a static array. The new API lets callers add new
> struct_ops types dynamically. The static array has been removed and
> replaced by the per-btf struct_ops_tab.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-27 21:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-27 20:52 [PATCH bpf-next v7 00/10] Registrating struct_ops types from modules thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 01/10] bpf: refactory struct_ops type initialization to a function thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 02/10] bpf, net: introduce bpf_struct_ops_desc thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 03/10] bpf: add struct_ops_tab to btf thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 04/10] bpf: hold module for bpf_struct_ops_map thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 05/10] bpf: validate value_type thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 06/10] bpf: pass attached BTF to the bpf_struct_ops subsystem thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 07/10] bpf, net: switch to dynamic registration thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 08/10] libbpf: Find correct module BTFs for struct_ops maps and progs thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 09/10] bpf: export btf_ctx_access to modules thinker.li
2023-10-27 20:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 10/10] selftests/bpf: test case for register_bpf_struct_ops() thinker.li
2023-10-27 21:23 ` Kui-Feng Lee [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-10-27 21:16 [PATCH bpf-next v7 00/10] Registrating struct_ops types from modules thinker.li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7f525126-92cd-4559-9128-894f0d9be512@gmail.com \
--to=sinquersw@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=drosen@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kuifeng@meta.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thinker.li@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox