On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 6:34 AM Pedro Tammela <pctamm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Em qua., 31 de mar. de 2021 às 03:54, Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakry...@gmail.com> escreveu: > > > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:11 AM Pedro Tammela <pctamm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The current way to provide a no-op flag to 'bpf_ringbuf_submit()', > > > 'bpf_ringbuf_discard()' and 'bpf_ringbuf_output()' is to provide a '0' > > > value. > > > > > > A '0' value might notify the consumer if it already caught up in > > > processing, > > > so let's provide a more descriptive notation for this value. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctamm...@mojatatu.com> > > > --- > > > > flags == 0 means "no extra modifiers of behavior". That's default > > adaptive notification. If you want to adjust default behavior, only > > then you specify non-zero flags. I don't think anyone will bother > > typing BPF_RB_MAY_WAKEUP for this, nor I think it's really needed. The > > documentation update is nice (if no flags are specified notification > > will be sent if needed), but the new "pseudo-flag" seems like an > > overkill to me. > > My intention here is to make '0' more descriptive. > But if you think just the documentation update is enough, then I will > remove the flag.
flags == 0 means "default behavior", I don't think you have to remember which verbose flag you need to specify for that, so I think just expanding documentation is sufficient and better. Thanks! > > > > > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 8 ++++++++ > > > tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 8 ++++++++ > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ima.c | 2 +- > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ringbuf_bench.c | 2 +- > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ringbuf.c | 2 +- > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ringbuf_multi.c | 2 +- > > > 6 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > [...]
