netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/19] xdp: a fistful of generic changes (+libeth

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <da2ab4c9-be5d-43c3-a2fc-2d3d0f227e47@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 11:26:41 -0800
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, "Alexei
 Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, "John
 Fastabend" <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, Stanislav Fomichev
	<sdf@...ichev.me>, Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
	<nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/19] xdp: a fistful of generic changes
 (+libeth_xdp)



On 11/20/2024 6:40 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 06:25:43 -0800
> 
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:06:56 +0100 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>>> This clearly could be multiple series, please don't go over the limit.  
>>>
>>> Sorta.
>>> I think I'll split it into two: changing the current logic + adding new
>>> functions and libeth_xdp. Maybe I could merge the second one with the
>>> Chapter IV, will see.
>>
>> FWIW I was tempted to cherry-pick patches 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, since they
>> look uncontroversial and stand on their own. But wasn't 100% sure I'm
>> not missing a dependency. Then I thought - why take the risk, let me
>> complain instead :) Easier to make progress with smaller series..
> 
> Sure, I understand. I wasn't sure it's not too much for one series, in
> such cases, I let the reviewers choose :)
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek
> 

15 limit has been the policy for quite some time, and I don't recall
seeing >15 get merged in recent memory.

Even 15 can sometimes be pushing it when there is obvious good
breakpoints for series.