On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:17:40PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > I'm swamped with other stuff today and will test the set Sunday/Monday > > with other patches that I'm working on. > > I'm not sure why you want to rename the interface. Seems > > pointless. But fine. > > For maintainability I think the code very much benefits from a clear > separation between the user mode driver code from the user mode helper > code. you mean different name gives that separation? makes sense. > > As far as routing trees. Do you mind I'll take it via bpf-next ? > > As I said countless times we're working on bpf_iter using fork_blob. > > If you take this set via your tree we would need to wait the whole kernel release. > > Which is 8+ weeks before we can use the interface (due to renaming and overall changes). > > I'd really like to avoid this huge delay. > > Unless you can land it into 5.8-rc2 or rc3. > > I also want to build upon this code. > > How about when the review is done I post a frozen branch based on > v5.8-rc1 that you can merge into the bpf-next tree, and I can merge into > my branch. That way we both can build upon this code. That is the way > conflicts like this are usually handled. sure. that works too. > Further I will leave any further enhancements to the user mode driver > infrastructure that people have suggested to you. ok
