On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:37 AM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 7:34 AM Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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? > > Since you're refusing to work with us your only option Who is "us"? ebpf? I hope you are not speaking on behalf of the net subsystem. You are entitled to your opinion (and aggression) - and there is a lot of that with you, but this should be based on technical merit not your emotions. I summarized the reasons brought up by you and Cilium. Do you have more to add to that list? If you do, please add to it. > is to mention my Nack in the cover letter and send it > as a PR to Linus during the merge window. You dont get to decide that - I was talking to the networking people. cheers, jamal
