Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] udp6: add a missing call into udp_fail_queue_rcv_skb tracepoint | From | Paolo Abeni <> | Date | Thu, 06 Jul 2023 19:37:50 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On Thu, 2023-07-06 at 10:22 -0700, Ivan Babrou wrote: > The tracepoint has existed for 12 years, but it only covered udp > over the legacy IPv4 protocol. Having it enabled for udp6 removes > the unnecessary difference in error visibility. > > Signed-off-by: Ivan Babrou <ivan@cloudflare.com> > Fixes: 296f7ea75b45 ("udp: add tracepoints for queueing skb to rcvbuf") > --- > net/ipv6/udp.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/ipv6/udp.c b/net/ipv6/udp.c > index e5a337e6b970..debb98fb23c0 100644 > --- a/net/ipv6/udp.c > +++ b/net/ipv6/udp.c > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ > #include <net/tcp_states.h> > #include <net/ip6_checksum.h> > #include <net/ip6_tunnel.h> > +#include <trace/events/udp.h> > #include <net/xfrm.h> > #include <net/inet_hashtables.h> > #include <net/inet6_hashtables.h> > @@ -680,6 +681,7 @@ static int __udpv6_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) > } > UDP6_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk), UDP_MIB_INERRORS, is_udplite); > kfree_skb_reason(skb, drop_reason); > + trace_udp_fail_queue_rcv_skb(rc, sk); > return -1; > }
The patch looks correct and consistency is a nice thing, but I'm wondering if we should instead remove the tracepoint from the UDP v4 code? We already have drop reason and MIBs to pin-point quite accurately UDP drops, and the trace point does not cover a few UDPv4 spots (e.g. mcast). WDYT?
Thanks!
Paolo
| |