On 2019/8/20 17:44, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:25:29AM +0200, Björn Töpel wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 10:59, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 09:28:26AM +0200, Björn Töpel wrote: >>>> For future patches: Prefix AF_XDP socket work with "xsk:" and use "PATCH >>>> bpf-next" to let the developers know what tree you're aiming for. >>> >>> There are over 300 trees in linux-next. It impossible to try remember >>> everyone's trees. No one else has this requirement. >>> >> >> Net/bpf are different, and I wanted to point that out to lessen the >> burden for the maintainers. It's documented in: >> >> Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst. >> Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst > > Ah... I hadn't realized that BPF patches were confusing to Dave. > > I actually do keep track of net and net-next. I do quite a bit of extra > stuff for netdev patches. So what about if we used [PATCH] for bpf and > [PATCH net] and [PATCH net-next] for networking? > > I will do that. bpf-next is a good choice. > > regards, > dan carpenter > > . >
