From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/8] xdp: Infrastructure to generalize XDP Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 17:17:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20170209.171706.1575416693138040726.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20170208234127.3041579-1-tom@herbertland.com> <20170208234127.3041579-2-tom@herbertland.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com To: tom@herbertland.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:51648 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751983AbdBIWSQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:18:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20170208234127.3041579-2-tom@herbertland.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Tom Herbert Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:41:20 -0800 > These hooks are also generic to allow for XDP/BPF programs as well > as non-BPF code (e.g. kernel code can be written in a module). I don't think we should even remotely consider surrendering the XDP hook to module code. We restrict it to eBPF for a reason, because that framework is restricted in what it can do, what it can access, and how it can do so. Tom if you're going to do a cleanup that makes it so that drivers need less code to support XDP, that is awesome but please do only that. Don't combine it with more controversial changes. Thank you.