From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-98.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-98.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.98]) (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 D95E2137750; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 05:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.98 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739771066; cv=none; b=VbmruGqpg5D2TLi6lh3BmzjnBYCU+HCkelmIrjUTqyL8EaNEyswr0Egm2fVu3BkS0Pc+6IDWwxEGIw2GwioGYebzm0iElC57pc5aTaH+Kz4jQvpfKh7R+fE3vWBBie9Lc58foCdkC0s+1NhO51A3y58tnOKXPs8q42mqxHGEp80= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739771066; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Z86hbm+AyS40zmwoHV2FxJBl2pnWWB7QD1M0ZpXBWRc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pRn//c5MIslQi8MwyQhsvhE1+E50Cn5G+ZwfL7JAS10sbq2lDl7qDp2uI0c6vGCnmODDgr+P0OoPYTk8uNj4/c1HU/7lMAMsoab4zgs6PdOo7HIpWHnjlmlRTq3ZmXZpZfK1AE/kr5I/wRnzCNbE2kE3JSZqvjURjkDD3uaWYUE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=PX8QS+JK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.98 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="PX8QS+JK" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1739771059; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=UDJBPz4tDQX1n8wj6sZdtoJl0cQHrWxiQmekpH9nHDc=; b=PX8QS+JK30jhN347gQJ5PMYByXClopS5qYi68KvwJpPusxRcBW3lFF2Fhdt8FZApH4hMWht478CMmrUsr1f3xWZsvZDvUzhmbpRSlp449CSMF+36RKlKgVxAoNHCw/fnrk/J2NEXjR2PK/KtnYN4PRH7njh7pIseqdJa7DHozhM= Received: from localhost(mailfrom:alibuda@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WPZCnV4_1739771057 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:44:17 +0800 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:44:17 +0800 From: "D. Wythe" To: Wenjia Zhang Cc: "D. Wythe" , jaka@linux.ibm.com, kgraul@linux.ibm.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, pabeni@redhat.com, song@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, yhs@fb.com, edumazet@google.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, guwen@linux.alibaba.com, kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/6] net/smc: Introduce smc_ops Message-ID: <20250217054417.GA91494@j66a10360.sqa.eu95> References: <20250123015942.94810-1-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> <20250214092209.GA88970@j66a10360.sqa.eu95> <2ae65126-73a3-4c18-bef5-d4067c727cf5@linux.ibm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <2ae65126-73a3-4c18-bef5-d4067c727cf5@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:37:55PM +0100, Wenjia Zhang wrote: > > > On 14.02.25 10:22, D. Wythe wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 09:59:36AM +0800, D. Wythe wrote: > >>This patch aims to introduce BPF injection capabilities for SMC and > >>includes a self-test to ensure code stability. > >> > >>Since the SMC protocol isn't ideal for every situation, especially > >>short-lived ones, most applications can't guarantee the absence of > >>such scenarios. Consequently, applications may need specific strategies > >>to decide whether to use SMC. For example, an application might limit SMC > >>usage to certain IP addresses or ports. > >> > >>To maintain the principle of transparent replacement, we want applications > >>to remain unaffected even if they need specific SMC strategies. In other > >>words, they should not require recompilation of their code. > >> > >>Additionally, we need to ensure the scalability of strategy implementation. > >>While using socket options or sysctl might be straightforward, it could > >>complicate future expansions. > >> > >>Fortunately, BPF addresses these concerns effectively. Users can write > >>their own strategies in eBPF to determine whether to use SMC, and they can > >>easily modify those strategies in the future. > > > >Hi smc folks, @Wenjia @Ian > > > >Is there any feedback regarding this patches ? This series of code has > >gone through multiple rounds of community reviews. However, the parts > >related to SMC, including the new sysctl and ops name, really needs > >your input and acknowledgment. > > > >Additionally, this series includes a bug fix for SMC, which is easily > >reproducible in the BPF CI tests. > > > >Thanks, > >D. Wythe > > > Hi D.Wythe, > > Thanks for the reminder! I have a few higher-priority tasks to > handle first, but I’ll get back to you as soon as I can—hopefully > next week. > > Thanks, > Wenjia Hi Wenjia, Thank you for your reply and explanation! I completely understand that you have higher-priority tasks to handle right now. I just wanted to ensure that this patch isn't overlooked, as it contains important changes and fixes related to SMC. Best wishes, D. Wythe