From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/11] bpf: Support passing args to sock_ops bpf function Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:34:55 +0100 Message-ID: <408c3990-727e-c911-b62a-2f4cc0bd2452@iogearbox.net> References: <20180120014548.2941040-1-brakmo@fb.com> <20180120014548.2941040-5-brakmo@fb.com> <6205e8b0-badf-c752-446a-21f75df6110b@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kernel Team , Blake Matheny , Alexei Starovoitov , Eric Dumazet , Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng To: Lawrence Brakmo , netdev Return-path: Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:45375 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751681AbeAXBe5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 20:34:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/24/2018 02:30 AM, Lawrence Brakmo wrote: > On 1/23/18, 5:11 PM, "Daniel Borkmann" wrote: [...] > > +{ > > + return -EPERM; > > +} > > + > > +static inline int tcp_call_bpf_4arg(struct sock *sk, int op, u32 arg1, u32 arg2, > > + u32 arg3, u32 arg4) > > +{ > > + return -EPERM; > > +} > > + > > #endif > > tcp_call_bpf_1arg() and tcp_call_bpf_4arg() unused for the time being? > > Yes, I just thought I should add them for completeness. Should I remove them until > they are actually used? Yeah, I think that would be preferred way. Thanks again, Daniel