Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 0/3] introduce new VFS based BPF kfuncs

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

 



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.





[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