[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240810032952.GB13701@ZenIV>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 04:29:52 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, viro@...nel.org,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/39] bpf: resolve_pseudo_ldimm64(): take handling of a
single ldimm64 insn into helper
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 09:51:34AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> The bpf changes look ok and Andrii's approach is easier to grasp.
> It's better to route bpf conversion to CLASS(fd,..) via bpf-next,
> so it goes through bpf CI and our other testing.
>
> bpf patches don't seem to depend on newly added CLASS(fd_pos, ...
> and fderr, so pretty much independent from other patches.
Representation change and switch to accessors do matter, though.
OTOH, I can put just those into never-rebased branch (basically,
"introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to it" +
"struct fd representation change" + possibly "add struct fd constructors,
get rid of __to_fd()", for completeness sake), so you could pull it.
Otherwise you'll get textual conflicts on all those f.file vs. fd_file(f)...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists