Hello, Alexei. On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 08:21:21AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > lol I should have read the whole thread before replying twice. Sorry > > about that. Yeah, if we can still rename it, let's do "under". It's > > more intuitive and gives us the room to implement the real "in" test > > if ever necessary in the future. > > agree. Thanks for explaining 'in' vs 'under' terminology. > since we can still rename skb_in_cgroup we should do it.
Sounds good to me. > and since that was my only nit for this patch. > Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org> FWIW, Acked-by: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> > All 3 patches should go via net-next and to avoid conflicts 1/3 can be > in cgroup tree as well (if you think there will be conflicts). > We did that in the past with tip and net-next and it worked out well. Yeah, just route it through net-next. If other changes ever need it, I'll include the commit in cgroup tree. Thanks. -- tejun
