On 2/19/24 4:48 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Sat, 2024-02-17 at 20:19 +0200, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
[...]
Also, shouldn't this go into bpf tree instead of bpf-next?
Will re-send v3 with fixes tag to 'bpf'
Sending via 'bpf' tree would require dropping patch #1.
The test_tcp_custom_syncookie is not yet in 'bpf'.
Note that patch #2 breaks syncookie test w/o patch #1.
Should I split this in two parts?
- patch #1 - send via bpf-next
- patch #2,3 - send via bpf
Sounds good to me. Patch 1 will likely to be merged in bpf-next
before patch 2/3 merged in bpf tree and circulared back to bpf-next.
Please add related commit message in Patch 1 to explain actual
fix will go to bpf tree and will be back to bpf-next later.
