From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/5] bpf: Refactor cgroups code in prep for
 new type
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:49:42 +0100
Message-ID: <20161031174942.GF32374@pox.localdomain>
References: <1477529922-4806-1-git-send-email-dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
 <1477529922-4806-2-git-send-email-dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
 <20161031.125801.874510216543796824.davem@davemloft.net>
 <542e0d3e-2f57-96f9-1da1-b71e2c970395@zonque.org>
 <44b37825-d001-c708-963f-cbdedb559710@cumulusnetworks.com>
 <7d2a099d-1039-ef2d-86e6-2fca151d316c@zonque.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        ast@fb.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, maheshb@google.com
To: Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:37424 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S945046AbcJaRtp (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:49:45 -0400
Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id t79so64503481wmt.0
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7d2a099d-1039-ef2d-86e6-2fca151d316c@zonque.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 10/31/16 at 06:16pm, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 10/31/2016 06:05 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 10/31/16 11:00 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> >> Yeah, I'm confused too. I changed that name in my v7 from 
> >> BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK to BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB on David's
> >> (Ahern) request. Why is it now renamed again?
> > 
> > Thomas pushed back on adding another program type in favor of using
> > subtypes. So this makes the program type generic to CGROUP and patch
> > 2 in this v2 set added Mickaël's subtype patch with the socket
> > mangling done that way in patch 3.
> > 
> 
> Fine for me. I can change it around again.

I would like to hear from Daniel B and Alexei as well. We need to
decide whether to use subtypes consistently and treat prog types as
something more high level or whether to bluntly introduce a new prog
type for every distinct set of verifier limits. I will change lwt_bpf
as well accordingly.