lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 09:02:53 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mingo@...hat.com, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, dsahern@...nel.org, Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>, kuniyu@...zon.co.jp, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] net: snmp: tracepoint support for snmp On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:47:21 +0800 Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote: > @Steven What do you think? I think I'm ok with both ideas, as my main target > is to get the reason for the packet drop. As for the idea of > 'kfree_skb_with_reason', I'm just a little worry about if we can accept the > modification it brings in. The use cases of trace events is really up to the subsystem maintainers. I only make sure that the trace events are done properly. So I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists