[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <083f1629-31f0-4903-2213-b98d7ebc3e84@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:48:25 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>, Blake Matheny <bmatheny@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 00/12] bpf: More sock_ops callbacks
On 1/24/18 7:48 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 07:27 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>
>> Most of the time, Yes, but it's the other way around this time.
>> I specifically asked Larry to do it this way, since net tree is
>> practically closed (only critical fixes allowed).
>> When 4.15 is released on Sunday we'll send this patch
>> independently to 4.15 and 4.14
>>
>
> How hard would it be to put the fix first in the series then ?
> If this proves complex, then maybe we have a bigger problem.
you mean to put patch 4 to be first in the series ?
I don't think that matters. It applies fine as-is on net tree
and builds without issues. I only need to double check that
nothing else needed before adding it to stable queue.
> I did not know merging bpf into bpf-next would be hard :)
yeah :) It's double pain for us too due to backports
into our kernels.
I think the speed of bpf development and attention from
the bigger kernel community increased this cycle a lot.
Hopefully next release things will calm down.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists