On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 00:00:33 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 11/24/20 11:30 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 23:25:11 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >> On 11/24/20 11:18 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:05:41 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >>>>> Build skb_shared_info on mvneta_rx_swbm stack and sync it to xdp_buff
> >>>>> skb_shared_info area only on the last fragment.
> >>>>> Avoid avoid unnecessary xdp_buff initialization in mvneta_rx_swbm
> >>>>> routine.
> >>>>> This a preliminary series to complete xdp multi-buff in mvneta driver.
> >>>>
> >>>> Looks fine, but since you need this for XDP multi-buff it should
> >>>> probably go via bpf-next, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jakub,
> >>>
> >>> thx for the review. Since the series changes networking-only bits I sent
> >>> it for
> >>> net-next, but I agree bpf-next is better.
> >>>
> >>> @Alexei, Daniel: is it fine to merge the series in bpf-next?
> >>
> >> Yeah totally fine, will take it into bpf-next in a bit.
> >
> > FWIW watch out with the Link:s, it wasn't CCed to bpf@vger.
>
> @Jakub, I think it's less hassle if you take the series in. Looking closer,
> net-next has
> commit 9c79a8ab5f12 ("net: mvneta: fix possible memory leak in
> mvneta_swbm_add_rx_fragment")
> which bpf-next is currently lacking, and this series here is touching the
> part of this
> code, so it will create unnecessary merge conflicts. I'll likely flush out
> bpf-next PR
> on Thurs/Fri at latest, so bpf-next will then have everything needed once we
> sync back
> from net-next after merge.
I see, applied to net-next then. Thanks!
