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.
