[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <feee2aad-6834-da69-a154-c1e0e21d12b7@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 17:30:53 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Kal Cutter Conley <kal.conley@...tris.com>
CC: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xsk: Add missing overflow check in xdp_umem_reg
From: Kal Conley <kal.conley@...tris.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:49:29 +0100
>> The code is fine to me.
>> Please resubmit with the fixed subject and expanded commit message.
>> I'd also prefer that you sent v3 as a separate mail, *not* as a reply to
>> this thread.
>
> Done. I used "bpf" in the subject as you suggested, however I am a bit
> confused by this. Should changes under net/xdp generally use "bpf" in
> the subject?
"bpf" when it's a fix (better to have some real repro, otherwise purely
hypothetical fix can be considered a bpf-next material), "bpf-next" when
it's an improvement / new stuff etc.
Also please don't forget to manually add all the folks who reviewed your
previous versions / were participating in the threads for previous
versions, otherwise they can miss the fact that you posted a new revision.
>
> Thanks,
> Kal
Thanks,
Olek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists