On 11/23/20 4:05 PM, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
From: Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2...@gmail.com>

The function xsk_map_inc is a simple wrapper of bpf_map_inc and
always returns zero. As such, replacing this function with bpf_map_inc
and removing the test code.

Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2...@gmail.com>
---
  net/xdp/xsk.c    |  2 +-
  net/xdp/xsk.h    |  1 -
  net/xdp/xskmap.c | 13 +------------
  3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk.c b/net/xdp/xsk.c
index cfbec3989a76..a3c1f07d77d8 100644
--- a/net/xdp/xsk.c
+++ b/net/xdp/xsk.c
@@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ static struct xsk_map *xsk_get_map_list_entry(struct 
xdp_sock *xs,
        node = list_first_entry_or_null(&xs->map_list, struct xsk_map_node,
                                        node);
        if (node) {
-               WARN_ON(xsk_map_inc(node->map));
+               bpf_map_inc(&node->map->map);
                map = node->map;
                *map_entry = node->map_entry;
        }
diff --git a/net/xdp/xsk.h b/net/xdp/xsk.h
index b9e896cee5bb..0aad25c0e223 100644
--- a/net/xdp/xsk.h
+++ b/net/xdp/xsk.h
@@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ static inline struct xdp_sock *xdp_sk(struct sock *sk)
void xsk_map_try_sock_delete(struct xsk_map *map, struct xdp_sock *xs,
                             struct xdp_sock **map_entry);
-int xsk_map_inc(struct xsk_map *map);
  void xsk_map_put(struct xsk_map *map);
  void xsk_clear_pool_at_qid(struct net_device *dev, u16 queue_id);
  int xsk_reg_pool_at_qid(struct net_device *dev, struct xsk_buff_pool *pool,
diff --git a/net/xdp/xskmap.c b/net/xdp/xskmap.c
index 49da2b8ace8b..6b7e9a72b101 100644
--- a/net/xdp/xskmap.c
+++ b/net/xdp/xskmap.c
@@ -11,12 +11,6 @@
#include "xsk.h" -int xsk_map_inc(struct xsk_map *map)
-{
-       bpf_map_inc(&map->map);
-       return 0;
-}
-
  void xsk_map_put(struct xsk_map *map)
  {

So, the xsk_map_put() is defined as:

  void xsk_map_put(struct xsk_map *map)
  {
        bpf_map_put(&map->map);
  }

What is the reason to get rid of xsk_map_inc() but not xsk_map_put() wrapper?
Can't we just remove both while we're at it?

Thanks,
Daniel

Reply via email to