From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@fb.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: fix the skip_if_dup_files check
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 01:54:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230830235459.GA3570@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25be098a-dc41-7907-5590-1835308ebe28@linux.dev>
On 08/28, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> On 8/28/23 3:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> >Could you review 6/6 as well?
>
> I think we can wait patch 6/6 after
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@redhat.com/
> is merged.
OK.
> >Should I fold 1-5 into a single patch? I tried to document every change
> >and simplify the review, but I do not want to blow the git history.
>
> Currently, because patch 6, the whole patch set cannot be tested by
> bpf CI since it has a build failure:
> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/5580
Heh. I thought this is obvious. I thought you can test 1-5 without 6/6
and _review_ 6/6.
I simply can't understand how can this pull/5580 come when I specially
mentioned
> 6/6 obviously depends on
>
> [PATCH 1/2] introduce __next_thread(), fix next_tid() vs exec() race
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@redhat.com/
>
> which was not merged yet.
in 0/6.
> I suggest you get patch 1-5 and resubmit with tag like
> "bpf-next v2"
> [Patch bpf-next v2 x/5] ...
> so CI can build with different architectures and compilers to
> ensure everything builds and runs fine.
I think we can wait for
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143142.GA31222@redhat.com/
as you suggest above, then I'll send the s/next_thread/__next_thread/
oneliner without 1-5. I no longer think it makes sense to try to cleanup
the poor task_group_seq_get_next() when IMHO the whole task_iter logic
needs the complete rewrite. Yes, yes, I know, it is very easy to blame
someone else's code, sorry can't resist ;)
The only "fix" in this series is 3/6, but this code has more serious
bugs, so I guess we can forget it.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-30 23:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-25 16:18 [PATCH 0/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: use __next_thread() Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 1/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: cleanup the usage of next_thread() Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:45 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 2/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: cleanup the usage of get/put_task_struct Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 3/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: fix the skip_if_dup_files check Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 17:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:52 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-27 20:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-28 1:18 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-28 10:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-29 0:30 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-30 23:54 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2023-08-31 11:29 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-31 12:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:49 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 4/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: kill next_task Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:55 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 5/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: simplify the "next tid" logic Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:57 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 6/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: use __next_thread() rather than next_thread() Oleg Nesterov
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=20230830235459.GA3570@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kuifeng@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@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).