On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:23 AM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 5:08 AM Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > My view is this series should still be applied with the nacks since it > > sits entirely on its own silo within networking/TC (and has nothing to > > do with ebpf). > > My Nack applies to the whole set. The kernel doesn't need this anti-feature > for many reasons already explained. Can you be more explicit? What else would you add to the list i posted above? cheers, jamal
