Alexander Nasonov <al...@yandex.ru> wrote: > > > > > > If this is the case, you don't need BPF_COP at all. > > > > For this particular case - yes, correct. > > > > > Except of course you may run out or memwords one day and you want > > > to have BPF_COP as a fallback. > > > > I still need BPF_COP for other tasks (e.g. NPF_COP_TABLE). Running out > > of words is unlikely, but COP can certainly be used to handle that too. > > I wonder why do you need two different features when one is a > superset of the other if you could use BPF_COP?
The fact that you can abuse one feature to achieve the result of another does not mean that it is a good solution. Using the external memory store and initialising/passing some values is just simple and straightforward, besides being faster. > <...> If the only reason > is performance, external memory is not a win-win proposition. You mean because using EREG penalises the access of the memstore? I doubt it is a big deal, but can we just benchmark and see? -- Mindaugas
