[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230830235459.GA3570@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 01:54:59 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: fix the
skip_if_dup_files check
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists