2018-04-11 20:43 GMT+02:00 Alexei Starovoitov <a...@fb.com>:
> On 4/11/18 5:17 AM, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> In the current RFC you are required to create both an Rx and Tx
>> queue to bind the socket, which is just weird for your "Rx on one
>> device, Tx to another" scenario. I'll fix that in the next RFC.
> I would defer on adding new features until the key functionality
> lands.  imo it's in good shape and I would submit it without RFC tag
> as soon as net-next reopens.

Yes, makes sense. We're doing some ptr_ring-like vs head/tail
measurements, and depending on the result we'll send out a proper
patch when net-next is open again.

What tree should we target -- bpf-next or net-next?


Reply via email to