[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220425125644.52e3aad4@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 12:56:44 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
Akhmat Karakotov <hmukos@...dex-team.ru>
Subject: Re: [net-next v4 0/3] use standard sysctl macro
On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 12:47:06 -0700 Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> I have a better option. I checked to see the diff stat between
> the proposed patch to see what the chances of a conflict are
> and so far I don't see any conflict so I think this patchset
> should just go through your tree.
>
> So feel free to take it in! Let me know if that's OK!
Ok, assuming the netfilter and bpf patches I saw were the only other
conversions we can resolve the conflicts before code reaches Linus...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists