On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 05:05 PM CEST, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:02 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 04:42 PM CEST, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: >> > Can I submit a patch to net tree that rewrites udp[46]_lib_lookup2() to >> > use only 'result' ? >> >> Feel free. That should make the conflict resolution even easier later >> on. > > Thanks for the detailed analysis, Jakub. > > Would it be easier to fix this wholly in bpf-next, by introducing > reuseport_result there? Did you mean replicating the Kuniyuki fix in bpf-next, or just introducing the intermediate 'reuseport_result' var? I'm assuming the former, so that the conflict resolving later on will reduce to selecting everything from bpf-next side. TBH, I don't what is the preferred way to handle it. Perhaps DaveM or Alexei/Daniel can say what would make their life easiest?
