On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:54:13AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:51 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:19:02AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > > > > @@ -108,9 +108,9 @@ static inline bool str_has_sfx(const char *str, const char *sfx) > > > > size_t str_len = strlen(str); > > > > size_t sfx_len = strlen(sfx); > > > > > > > > - if (sfx_len <= str_len) > > > > - return strcmp(str + str_len - sfx_len, sfx); > > > > - return false; > > > > + if (sfx_len > str_len) > > > > + return false; > > > > + return strcmp(str + str_len - sfx_len, sfx) == 0; > > > Please tag the subject with "bpf" next time. > > > > I always work against linux-next. Would it help if I put that in the > > subject? > > > > Otherwise I don't have a way to figure this stuff out. I kind of know > > networking tree but not 100% and that is a massive pain in the butt. > > Until there is an automated way that then those kind of requests are > > not reasonable. > > Dan, > > you were told multiple times to follow the rules. > bpf patches should target bpf of bpf-next trees only. > If you send against linux-next you're taking a random chance > that they will pass CI. > In turn making everyone waste time. > Please follow the simple rules. That's true. We have this discussion every time and I always tell you that the rules are untenable. I'm just going to send bug reports to whoever introduces bug and they can deal with it. regards, dan carpenter
