[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DU0P192MB1547BAB562FED0D6401DF5B1D61A9@DU0P192MB1547.EURP192.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 19:47:15 +0800
From: Ji Rongfeng <SikoJobs@...look.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
Cc: daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com, ast@...nel.org,
andrii@...nel.org, song@...nel.org, yhs@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: Upgrade bpf_{g,s}etsockopt return values
On 2022/12/7 2:37, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 12/6/22 8:35 AM, Ji Rongfeng wrote:
>> I have noticed that this patch has been marked as "Changes Requested"
>> for a few days, but there's no comment so far, which is abnormal and
>> confusing.
>
> It is obvious that a test is needed for this change.
>
Sure. These unique return values will be written into documentation and
widely used in production environment. So I will add some tests, to make
sure that they won't be changed accidentally in the future.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists