From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 09:16:00 +0100
> Please don't apply it yet as the series is still under active
> discussion - for now
Fine, reverted.
* David Miller wrote:
> From: Josef Bacik
> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 15:28:41 -0500
>
> > I'm sending this through Dave since it'll conflict with other BPF changes
> > in his
> > tree, but since it touches tracing as well Dave would like a review from
> > somebody on the tracing side.
> ...
>
From: Josef Bacik
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 15:28:41 -0500
> I'm sending this through Dave since it'll conflict with other BPF changes in
> his
> tree, but since it touches tracing as well Dave would like a review from
> somebody on the tracing side.
...
> A lot of our error paths are not well tes
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 06:43:25AM +0900, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 11/8/17 5:28 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > I'm sending this through Dave since it'll conflict with other BPF changes
> > in his
> > tree, but since it touches tracing as well Dave would like a review from
> > somebody on the tra
From: Alexei Starovoitov
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 06:43:25 +0900
> looks great to me.
> Peter,
> could you please review x86 bits?
I'm still waiting for this.
On 11/8/17 5:28 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
I'm sending this through Dave since it'll conflict with other BPF changes in his
tree, but since it touches tracing as well Dave would like a review from
somebody on the tracing side.
v4->v5:
- disallow kprobe_override programs from being put in the prog ma
I'm sending this through Dave since it'll conflict with other BPF changes in his
tree, but since it touches tracing as well Dave would like a review from
somebody on the tracing side.
v4->v5:
- disallow kprobe_override programs from being put in the prog map array so we
don't tail call into some
7 matches
Mail list logo