On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 6:22 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 08:56:01AM GMT, Matt Bobrowski wrote: > > G'day! > > > > The original cover letter providing background context and motivating > > factors around the needs for these new VFS related BPF kfuncs > > introduced within this patch series can be found here [0]. Please do > > reference that if needed. > > > > The changes contained within this version of the patch series mainly > > came at the back of discussions held with Christian at LSFMMBPF > > recently. In summary, the primary difference within this patch series > > when compared to the last [1] is that I've reduced the number of VFS > > related BPF kfuncs being introduced, housed them under fs/, and added > > more selftests. > > I have no complaints about this now that it's been boiled down. > So as far as I'm concerned I'm happy to pick this up. We very much prefer to go standard route via bpf-next like we do for all kfuncs to avoid conflicts in selftests, and where these patches will be actively tested by CI and developers. So please provide an Ack. I can fix up <= while applying. > (I also wouldn't > mind follow-up patches that move the xattr bpf kfuncs under fs/ as > well.) np. I'm sure Song can move xattr kfunc to this newly added file.
