> > Additionally, we will be able to support cookie for non-link > struct_ops with this way. > > This approach will not block future effort to support link-specific > cookie if there is such a use case. We can revisit this patchset then. It will create two ways to specify BPF cookie for struct_ops: (legacy and special way) through map_flags and common one through the LINK_CREATE command (and I guess we'd need to reject LINK_CREATE if cookie was already set through map_flags, right?). Why confuse users like that?
