Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/3] bpf: btf: print bpftool map data with btf | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Date | Sat, 14 Jul 2018 00:35:03 +0200 |
| |
On 07/13/2018 11:35 PM, Okash Khawaja wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:49:01PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 07/12/2018 05:30 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 20:08:03 -0700, Okash Khawaja wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Here are the changes from v4: >>>> >>>> patch 2: >>>> >>>> - sort headers in btf_dumper.c >>>> - remove extra parentheses >>>> - include asm/byteorder.h >>>> - compile error when big and small endian bitfields macro undefined >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> >> >> Hmm, strange, by accident I just noticed that only your bpf fix ever made >> it to patchwork, Okash. >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_project_netdev_list_-3Fsubmitter-3D74458-26state-3D-2A&d=DwICaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=4wHrS7MHHFLZe_WCJwRVhA&m=wkiBQFYWPyiN9WONHLY0WiZxcOwNRhXaMMLIE551mCA&s=RggQzClRdkwawboGLPgPXHOdUtYffxeOwlcBlFru-P4&e= >> >> Potentially because you've sent with attachments which got dropped on >> the list? > interesting because i send all patches using quilt mail, the same way i > sent bpf fix. i can try git-send-email. > > also i dropped Acked-by as i changed patch versions. is it common thing > to do? or should i keep the Acked-by?
Depends on whether the pieces that have been ACKed changed in the meantime or not.
| |