On 10/31/16 11:49 AM, Thomas Graf wrote: > 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. >
Alexei / Daniel - any comments/preferences on subtypes vs program types?
