[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <783d0842-a83f-c22f-25f2-4a86f3924472@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:33:00 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
prashantbhole.linux@...il.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
brouer@...hat.com, toshiaki.makita1@...il.com,
daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com, ast@...nel.org,
kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, andriin@...com,
David Ahern <dahern@...italocean.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 04/16] net: Add BPF_XDP_EGRESS as a
bpf_attach_type
On 4/22/20 9:27 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> And as I said in the beginning, I'm perfectly happy to be told why I'm
> wrong; but so far you have just been arguing that I'm out of scope ;)
you are arguing about a suspected bug with existing code that is no way
touched or modified by this patch set, so yes it is out of scope.
The proper way to discuss a bug in existing code is a thread focused on
that topic, not buried inside comments on a patch set.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists