On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:10:13AM -0800, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > 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. As said, if there is a good reason, I'm ok with routing it through bpf-next. Looks like there is a good readon, so go with bpf-next.
