On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 01:04:35PM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 13:37 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 09:08:23AM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 00:38 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 04:33:11PM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > In preparation for the patch that introduces the > > > > > bpf_lookup_user_key() eBPF > > > > > kfunc, move KEY_LOOKUP_ definitions to include/linux/key.h, to > > > > > be > > > > > able to > > > > > validate the kfunc parameters. Add them to enum > > > > > key_lookup_flag, so > > > > > that > > > > > all the current ones and the ones defined in the future are > > > > > automatically > > > > > exported through BTF and available to eBPF programs. > > > > > > > > > > Also, add KEY_LOOKUP_ALL to the enum, to facilitate checking > > > > > whether a > > > > > variable contains only defined flags. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reviewed-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > You should remove ack if there is any substantial change. > > > > > > Yes, sorry. I thought you were fine with the change due to: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/YxF4H9MTDj+PnJ+V@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > It was the documentation part, not really the enum change. > > > > Ok, so if I remove the documentation I can keep your ack? Can you show the updated patch (e.g. via using attachment)? BR, Jarkko
