On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 6:34 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> Em qua., 31 de mar. de 2021 às 03:54, Andrii Nakryiko
> escreveu:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:11 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
> > >
> > > The current way to provide a no-op flag to 'bpf_ringbuf_submit()',
> > > 'bpf_ringbuf_discard()' and
Em qua., 31 de mar. de 2021 às 03:54, Andrii Nakryiko
escreveu:
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:11 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
> >
> > The current way to provide a no-op flag to 'bpf_ringbuf_submit()',
> > 'bpf_ringbuf_discard()' and 'bpf_ringbuf_output()' is to provide a '0'
> > value.
> >
> > A '0' v
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:11 AM Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> The current way to provide a no-op flag to 'bpf_ringbuf_submit()',
> 'bpf_ringbuf_discard()' and 'bpf_ringbuf_output()' is to provide a '0'
> value.
>
> A '0' value might notify the consumer if it already caught up in processing,
> so let's
> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:10 AM, Pedro Tammela wrote:
>
> The current way to provide a no-op flag to 'bpf_ringbuf_submit()',
> 'bpf_ringbuf_discard()' and 'bpf_ringbuf_output()' is to provide a '0'
> value.
>
> A '0' value might notify the consumer if it already caught up in processing,
> so le
The current way to provide a no-op flag to 'bpf_ringbuf_submit()',
'bpf_ringbuf_discard()' and 'bpf_ringbuf_output()' is to provide a '0'
value.
A '0' value might notify the consumer if it already caught up in processing,
so let's provide a more descriptive notation for this value.
Signed-off-by: