Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-159372-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <6976b7ea-a7d4-41fc-93ac-fd5972466520@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:55:23 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v5 1/2] net: Rename mono_delivery_time to
 tstamp_type for scalabilty
Content-Language: en-US
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
CC: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller"
	<davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com>,
        "Martin
 KaFai Lau" <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel@quicinc.com>
References: <20240424222028.1080134-1-quic_abchauha@quicinc.com>
 <20240424222028.1080134-2-quic_abchauha@quicinc.com>
 <662a69475869_1de39b29415@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
 <a84d314a-fca4-4317-9d33-0c7d3213c612@quicinc.com>
 <6cebfd92-7ad0-496a-9f31-f4c696fb5cb8@linux.dev>
From: "Abhishek Chauhan (ABC)" <quic_abchauha@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <6cebfd92-7ad0-496a-9f31-f4c696fb5cb8@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 4/25/2024 4:50 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 4/25/24 12:02 PM, Abhishek Chauhan (ABC) wrote:
>>>>> @@ -9444,7 +9444,7 @@ static struct bpf_insn *bpf_convert_tstamp_read(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
>>>>                       TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK | SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK);
>>>>           *insn++ = BPF_JMP32_IMM(BPF_JNE, tmp_reg,
>>>>                       TC_AT_INGRESS_MASK | SKB_MONO_DELIVERY_TIME_MASK, 2);
>>>> -        /* skb->tc_at_ingress && skb->mono_delivery_time,
>>>> +        /* skb->tc_at_ingress && skb->tstamp_type:1,
>>> Is the :1 a stale comment after we discussed how to handle the 2-bit
>> This is first patch which does not add tstamp_type:2 at the moment.
>> This series is divided into two patches
>> 1. One patchset => Just rename (So the comment is still skb->tstamp_type:1)
>> 2. Second patchset => add another bit (comment is changed to skb->tstamp_type:2)
> 
> I would suggest to completely avoid the ":1" or ":2" part in patch 1. Just use "... && skb->tstamp_type". The number of bits does not matter. The tstamp_type will still be considered as a whole even if it would become 3 bits (unlikely) in the future.

Okay i will just keep it as skb->tstamp_type instead of adding bitfields.