Re: [PATCH] libbpf: fix str_has_sfx()

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:54:13AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:51 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 10:19:02AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > > @@ -108,9 +108,9 @@ static inline bool str_has_sfx(const char *str, const char *sfx)
> > > >     size_t str_len = strlen(str);
> > > >     size_t sfx_len = strlen(sfx);
> > > >
> > > > -   if (sfx_len <= str_len)
> > > > -           return strcmp(str + str_len - sfx_len, sfx);
> > > > -   return false;
> > > > +   if (sfx_len > str_len)
> > > > +           return false;
> > > > +   return strcmp(str + str_len - sfx_len, sfx) == 0;
> > > Please tag the subject with "bpf" next time.
> >
> > I always work against linux-next.  Would it help if I put that in the
> > subject?
> >
> > Otherwise I don't have a way to figure this stuff out.  I kind of know
> > networking tree but not 100% and that is a massive pain in the butt.
> > Until there is an automated way that then those kind of requests are
> > not reasonable.
> 
> Dan,
> 
> you were told multiple times to follow the rules.
> bpf patches should target bpf of bpf-next trees only.
> If you send against linux-next you're taking a random chance
> that they will pass CI.
> In turn making everyone waste time.
> Please follow the simple rules.

That's true.  We have this discussion every time and I always tell you
that the rules are untenable.  I'm just going to send bug reports to
whoever introduces bug and they can deal with it.

regards,
dan carpenter