On 2021-02-19 18:05, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Björn Töpel <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
@@ -4110,22 +4094,17 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_xdp_redirect_proto = { .arg2_type = ARG_ANYTHING, };-BPF_CALL_3(bpf_xdp_redirect_map, struct bpf_map *, map, u32, ifindex,- u64, flags) +static __always_inline s64 __bpf_xdp_redirect_map(struct bpf_map *map, u32 ifindex, u64 flags, + void *lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, + u32 key)) { struct bpf_redirect_info *ri = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_redirect_info);- /* Lower bits of the flags are used as return code on lookup failure */if (unlikely(flags > XDP_TX)) return XDP_ABORTED;- ri->tgt_value = __xdp_map_lookup_elem(map, ifindex);+ ri->tgt_value = lookup_elem(map, ifindex); if (unlikely(!ri->tgt_value)) { - /* If the lookup fails we want to clear out the state in the - * redirect_info struct completely, so that if an eBPF program - * performs multiple lookups, the last one always takes - * precedence. - */Why remove the comments?
Ugh, no reason. I'll do a v2. LKP had a warning as well. Thanks, Björn [...]
