[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tuxzwp0v.fsf@cloudflare.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:25:04 +0200
From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.co.jp>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net tree
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 05:05 PM CEST, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:02 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 04:42 PM CEST, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>> > Can I submit a patch to net tree that rewrites udp[46]_lib_lookup2() to
>> > use only 'result' ?
>>
>> Feel free. That should make the conflict resolution even easier later
>> on.
>
> Thanks for the detailed analysis, Jakub.
>
> Would it be easier to fix this wholly in bpf-next, by introducing
> reuseport_result there?
Did you mean replicating the Kuniyuki fix in bpf-next, or just
introducing the intermediate 'reuseport_result' var?
I'm assuming the former, so that the conflict resolving later on will
reduce to selecting everything from bpf-next side.
TBH, I don't what is the preferred way to handle it. Perhaps DaveM or
Alexei/Daniel can say what would make their life easiest?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists