Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 2/3] xfrm: interface: Add unstable helpers for setting/getting XFRM metadata from TC-BPF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux