On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:46 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 6/21/22 12:25 AM, Hao Luo wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:48 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 6/10/22 12:44 PM, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > >>> From: Hao Luo <haoluo@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> In bpf_seq_read, seq->op->next() could return an ERR and jump to > >>> the label stop. However, the existing code in stop does not handle > >>> the case when p (returned from next()) is an ERR. Adds the handling > >>> of ERR of p by converting p into an error and jumping to done. > >>> > >>> Because all the current implementations do not have a case that > >>> returns ERR from next(), so this patch doesn't have behavior changes > >>> right now. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Hao Luo <haoluo@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> > > > > Yonghong, do you want to get this change in now, or you want to wait > > for the whole patchset? This fix is straightforward and independent of > > other parts. Yosry and I can rebase. > > Sorry for delay. Let me review other patches as well before your next > version. Thanks! > > BTW, I would be great if you just put the prerequisite patch I am intending to do that in the next version if KP's patchset doesn't land in bpf-next. > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421140740.459558-5-benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx/ > as the first patch so at least BPF CI will be able to test > your patch set. It looks like KP's bpf_getxattr patch set already did this. > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220624045636.3668195-2-kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u >
