Re: [PATCH v2 02/23] bpf: initial support for attaching struct ops to cgroups

[Roman Gushchin]

Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 04:17:05PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> @@ -1849,6 +1849,7 @@ struct bpf_struct_ops_link {
>>  	struct bpf_link link;
>>  	struct bpf_map __rcu *map;
>>  	wait_queue_head_t wait_hup;
>> +	u64 cgroup_id;
>>  };
>
> BTW, for sched_ext sub-sched support, I'm just adding cgroup_id to
> struct_ops, which seems to work fine. It'd be nice to align on the same
> approach. What are the benefits of doing this through fd?

Then you can attach a single struct ops to multiple cgroups (or Idk
sockets or processes or some other objects in the future).
And IMO it's just a more generic solution.

Thanks!