On 7/8/25 4:16 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
How about directly figuring out the next start_sk here? The next start_sk should be the sk_nulls_next() of the iter->batch[iter->end_sk - 1]?
I take it back. iter->batch[iter->end_sk - 1] is not enough. It still needs to do the seq_sk_match() test. I can't think of a better way. Agree to keep your current approach.