From: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@intel.com>
To: "Ilya Maximets" <i.maximets@samsung.com>,
"Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>,
ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: magnus.karlsson@intel.com, magnus.karlsson@gmail.com,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, jonathan.lemon@gmail.com,
syzbot+c82697e3043781e08802@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
hdanton@sina.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/4] xsk: add proper barriers and {READ, WRITE}_ONCE-correctness for state
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 18:34:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b780dd4-227f-64c4-260d-9e819ba7081f@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14576fd3-69ce-6493-5a38-c47566851d4e@samsung.com>
On 2019-08-26 17:24, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> This changes the error code a bit.
> Previously:
> umem exists + xs unbound --> EINVAL
> no umem + xs unbound --> EBADF
> xs bound to different dev/q --> EINVAL
>
> With this change:
> umem exists + xs unbound --> EBADF
> no umem + xs unbound --> EBADF
> xs bound to different dev/q --> EINVAL
>
> Just a note. Not sure if this is important.
>
Note that this is for *shared* umem, so it's very seldom used. Still,
you're right, that strictly this is an uapi break, but I'd vote for the
change still. I find it hard to see that anyone relies on EINVAL/EBADF
for shared umem bind.
Opinions? :-)
Björn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-26 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-26 6:10 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] xsk: various CPU barrier and {READ, WRITE}_ONCE fixes Björn Töpel
2019-08-26 6:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] xsk: avoid store-tearing when assigning queues Björn Töpel
2019-08-26 6:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/4] xsk: add proper barriers and {READ, WRITE}_ONCE-correctness for state Björn Töpel
2019-08-26 15:24 ` Ilya Maximets
2019-08-26 16:34 ` Björn Töpel [this message]
2019-08-26 17:57 ` Jonathan Lemon
2019-08-26 17:54 ` Jonathan Lemon
2019-09-03 15:22 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-09-03 15:26 ` Björn Töpel
2019-08-26 6:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] xsk: avoid store-tearing when assigning umem Björn Töpel
2019-08-26 6:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] xsk: lock the control mutex in sock_diag interface Björn Töpel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1b780dd4-227f-64c4-260d-9e819ba7081f@intel.com \
--to=bjorn.topel@intel.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn.topel@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=i.maximets@samsung.com \
--cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \
--cc=magnus.karlsson@gmail.com \
--cc=magnus.karlsson@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=syzbot+c82697e3043781e08802@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).