From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev, kernel-team@fb.com,
kuniyu@amazon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:30:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <25cbdfe8-6e95-4f28-afa5-f7f7e427ce9a@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57dbae6ab0ce251221aecc03beb7f1fb90a9ab7c.camel@gmail.com>
On 2/19/24 4:48 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-02-17 at 20:19 +0200, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> Also, shouldn't this go into bpf tree instead of bpf-next?
>> Will re-send v3 with fixes tag to 'bpf'
> Sending via 'bpf' tree would require dropping patch #1.
> The test_tcp_custom_syncookie is not yet in 'bpf'.
> Note that patch #2 breaks syncookie test w/o patch #1.
> Should I split this in two parts?
> - patch #1 - send via bpf-next
> - patch #2,3 - send via bpf
Sounds good to me. Patch 1 will likely to be merged in bpf-next
before patch 2/3 merged in bpf tree and circulared back to bpf-next.
Please add related commit message in Patch 1 to explain actual
fix will go to bpf tree and will be back to bpf-next later.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-20 0:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-16 15:03 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-16 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] selftests/bpf: update tcp_custom_syncookie to use scalar packet offset Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-16 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: check bpf_func_state->callback_depth when pruning states Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-16 18:16 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-02-17 18:19 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-19 12:48 ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-20 0:30 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2024-02-16 15:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf: test case for callback_depth states pruning logic Eduard Zingerman
2024-02-20 0:32 ` Yonghong Song
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=25cbdfe8-6e95-4f28-afa5-f7f7e427ce9a@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=kuniyu@amazon.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).