Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 May 2013 09:48:43 +0200 | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the net-next tree |
| |
On 05/22/2013 09:19 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:14:58 -0700 > >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:07:48 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >> >>> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >>> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:38 -0700 >>> >>>> Nicolas, I think the patches need a re-check so I'll drop the versions >>>> which I presently have. Please refresh, retest and resend when >>>> convenient? It'll need to be against linux-next, which is where the >>>> conflicting (vfree/module_free) changes have occurred. >>> >>> How about working against net-next and submitting your patches to netdev >>> just like the rest of the world? >> >> Well that's probably practical. But the patchset is a seccomp >> enhancement for (at present) ARM. Not exactly net stuff, or anything >> which netdev readers are likely to spend a lot of time testing and >> reviewing. > > The seccomp BPF bits we reviewed and were interested in completely, because > we're going to have to support JIT'ing all of that stuff on every cpu and > we're interested how it fits into the existing BPF codes and infrastructure.
+1
seccomp is wired with BPF (JITs in arch/*/net/ + net/core/filter.c) and that's part of networking, so they should go through netdev. This makes it also way easier for review.
| |