On 11/29/22 8:15 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:50:01 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote:
Please tag for bpf-next
This is a change to xfrm ipsec, so it should go
through the ipsec-next tree, unless there is
a good reason for handling that different.
The set is mostly depending on the bpf features. Patch 2 is mostly depending on
bpf and patch 3 is also a bpf selftest. I assume the set should have been
developed based on the bpf-next tree instead. It is also good to have the test
run in bpf CI sooner than later to bar on-going bpf changes that may break it.
It is the reason I think bpf-next makes more sense.
If it is preferred to go through ipsec-next, the set should at least be tested
against the bpf-next before posting.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20221129132018.985887-4-eyal.birger@xxxxxxxxx/
