On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 4:57 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 03:55:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > They were also merged into bpf-next/for-next so they can get early testing in > > > linux-next. > > Umm... I see that stuff in bpf-next/struct_fd, but not in your for-next. We have a new process with for-next and my merge was probably accidentally dropped at some point... But there was definitely a period of time when these patches were in for-next, so they got some compile-testing already and should be good to go. > > > Can you guys please take a look and let us know if this looks sane and > > fine to you? I kept Al's patches mostly intact (see my notes in the > > cover letter above), and patch #3 does the refactoring I proposed > > earlier, keeping explicit fdput() temporarily, until Al's > > __bpf_map_get() refactoring which allows and nice and simple CLASS(fd) > > conversion. > > > > I think we end up at exactly what the end goal of the original series > > is: using CLASS(fd, ...) throughout with all the benefits. > > Looks sane. Alright, good to know. I'll follow up with BPF maintainers on the best way to land all that, thanks.
