On Apr 19 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:12 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's something I added while adding the tests. And some tests were passing
> > in case I was having a non sleepable callback. But if we have
> > bpf_rcu_read_lock(), we are all fine
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:12 AM Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
>
> It's something I added while adding the tests. And some tests were passing
> in case I was having a non sleepable callback. But if we have
> bpf_rcu_read_lock(), we are all fine and can reduce the complexity.
Not quite following
On Apr 18 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:08:24PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > We need to teach the verifier about the second argument which is declared
> > as void * but which is of type KF_ARG_PTR_TO_MAP. We could have dropped
> > this extra case if we
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:08:24PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> We need to teach the verifier about the second argument which is declared
> as void * but which is of type KF_ARG_PTR_TO_MAP. We could have dropped
> this extra case if we declared the second argument as struct bpf_map *,
> but
We need to teach the verifier about the second argument which is declared
as void * but which is of type KF_ARG_PTR_TO_MAP. We could have dropped
this extra case if we declared the second argument as struct bpf_map *,
but that means users will have to do extra casting to have their program
