On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:40 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> Recently we had linux-next bpf/bpf-next conflict when we added new
> functionality to the test_progs.c at the same location. Let's split
> test_progs.c the same way we recently split test_verifier.c.
>
> I follow the same patten we did i
Recently we had linux-next bpf/bpf-next conflict when we added new
functionality to the test_progs.c at the same location. Let's split
test_progs.c the same way we recently split test_verifier.c.
I follow the same patten we did in commit 2dfb40121ee8 ("selftests: bpf:
prepare for break up of verif
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:00 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> On 03/01/2019 12:24 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > Recently we had linux-next bpf/bpf-next conflict when we added new
> > functionality to the test_progs.c at the same location. Let's split
> > test_progs.c the same way we recently split
On 03/01/2019 12:24 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> Recently we had linux-next bpf/bpf-next conflict when we added new
> functionality to the test_progs.c at the same location. Let's split
> test_progs.c the same way we recently split test_verifier.c.
>
> I follow the same patten we did in commit
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:38 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> Recently we had linux-next bpf/bpf-next conflict when we added new
> functionality to the test_progs.c at the same location. Let's split
> test_progs.c the same way we recently split test_verifier.c.
>
> I follow the same patten we did
Recently we had linux-next bpf/bpf-next conflict when we added new
functionality to the test_progs.c at the same location. Let's split
test_progs.c the same way we recently split test_verifier.c.
I follow the same patten we did in commit 2dfb40121ee8 ("selftests: bpf:
prepare for break up of verif
