From: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 01:40:35 +0200
> Differ between illegal XDP action code and just driver
> unsupported one to provide better feedback when we throw
> a one-time warning here. Reason is that with 814abfabef3c
> ("xdp: add bpf_redirect helper function") not all drivers
> support the new XDP return code yet and thus they will
> fall into their 'default' case when checking for return
> codes after program return, which then triggers a
> bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action() stating that the return
> code is illegal, but from XDP perspective it's not.
>
> I decided not to place something like a XDP_ACT_MAX define
> into uapi i) given we don't have this either for all other
> program types, ii) future action codes could have further
> encoding there, which would render such define unsuitable
> and we wouldn't be able to rip it out again, and iii) we
> rarely add new action codes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
Applied.
