From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918F3C433FE for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 10:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DF3224BD for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 10:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2438664AbgLLKK7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Dec 2020 05:10:59 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41686 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2406561AbgLLJyA (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Dec 2020 04:54:00 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x144.google.com (mail-il1-x144.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::144]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF3C2C06138C; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 01:02:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x144.google.com with SMTP id p5so11115681iln.8; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 01:02:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MF8Qpp6oAIyzdJjFXDLgg5mQAJADM65GySy+Sj/Tbz4=; b=OiChpZ7eSxcW/vDX5u8qE3LbgdjkUKXWROaXZ6p/d3gCBkGoEzIrY2DF637Vbj7I1E tve41JqQ8V6F0T71K4ysi1LG87MTjiHUlHcRYQvLqfFjh4PrwbQzKxiyyq44EQfXgkVN mx0AgnKgIAcCH04vpEe05KqVFw9HXjW+GzU0jdrP8Xih5Vho3uD+aFQ6vIzq1yxPnxHo LOia1sDztj5u5xh8fuw1egc8UGDG5/Q/HWA7gtw5Nn9JczDFvZ4mFSVVHlPaohz76qQI jHeVPRTMPqEYXCeO2s9NyV7RBij1eXobpV2gj4BO66PPssZjEZUHqByL3vBx7aM5jcI2 V21Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MF8Qpp6oAIyzdJjFXDLgg5mQAJADM65GySy+Sj/Tbz4=; b=Nw0/4cs2Wx6dlGH9SFDZqSLt6BG+T7IJOsbiHYGNy2ailouoBnMoiA/APOAH6zm9T1 tJ/T2MIw0IZlr54cmsenC+NXE85kVkOC3aWP/69tAdtVg0sxKiN7JHdCK8ILuKUUlPlm RbzHwdIFo0wQ1yXH7Rm+E8QZmPt2Jgb6d931TBtlSJctsOXDZlGrvWTQKXoAKw8mT47L /MVmBwCV0D4GKnOJ9iTHMyNILj/CGE3hYs61B2CtFJ8nizrKAKQWC4LPL9/IZ/rB0DTh X7y+XStTvCvAp8zrszyZ4S3tADZtftQH2DMrt5Qd+PcWn/A1K7xmKe9LgZlFyDsirAhy aH8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nwPLoO/A9trjeXO93A/6fxvK8N+VrchRDNrM1OP2zmf8eDWZw vZxXhBTiElfCme2aVOXonUeRyUveCGbo8S4V2MhqvAfElFA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwyY4XbP0XKbLoF2RsE+g4IgwSOrX668gIlEAAoxD1UJo9nk0PT14lsy9vsFpn1/RKwpuQzlvuJ/y9OlSNG3J0= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:93d5:: with SMTP id v204mr20199242iod.155.1607762383583; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 00:39:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201211163749.31956-1-yonatanlinik@gmail.com> <20201211163749.31956-2-yonatanlinik@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Yonatan Linik Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 10:39:32 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: Fix use of proc_fs To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , Andrii Nakryiko , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Willem de Bruijn , john.ogness@linutronix.de, Arnd Bergmann , Mao Wenan , Colin Ian King , orcohen@paloaltonetworks.com, Networking , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , bpf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 11:00 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Another option would be to just ignore the return code here > and continue without a procfs file, regardless of whether procfs > is enabled or not. > > Arnd Yes I thought about that, but I didn't want to make changes to the way it behaved when procfs was enabled. If you decide that's a better solution I will happily change it. -- Yonatan Linik