Re: [PATCH 0/5] bpf: Adjustments for four function implementations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 1:10 AM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> A few update suggestions were taken into account
> >> from static source code analysis.
> >
> > Auto Nack.
> > Pls don't send such patches. You were told multiple
> > times that such kfree usage is fine.
>
> Some implementation details are improvable.
> Can you find an update step (like the following) helpful?
>
> [PATCH 2/5] bpf: Move an assignment for the variable “st_map” in bpf_struct_ops_link_create()
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ed2f5323-390f-4c9d-919d-df43ba1cad2b@xxxxxx/

This change is not helpful at all. The use of "st_map" in current code as-is
doesn't cause any confusion, i.e., it is always struct bpf_struct_ops_map *.
OTOH, this patch will make it harder for folks who use git-blame. Therefore,
it adds negative value to the code base.

Thanks,
Song





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux