From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from out-178.mta0.migadu.com (out-178.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.178])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 691882FC037;
	Mon, 18 May 2026 23:08:02 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.178
ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116;
	t=1779145683; cv=none; b=MHgLkceGpcOIbp+Ol5E2uYpLd+aZZBp3Gk56FdmHtvXue0o1KqLlDe4J+uMecbAaOaA/hJ6Sxe6ox/UB4Z1PJt9lhYUpH822lrllNubsuHn/jAFwzVJ5aMYfSduql3zszfoV7nlUG85EL1go+QCboJPg/HHCeFckRrwxsAWvToY=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1779145683; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=4q2GOm1N4IpIGCfMcBHRTAsYMJPr9WGSOlAlYUvlfq8=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	 Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZwjIBcIIywZR3XFGx9zq04Aacw/3iso2vtOrqoe/qF0BQ/t2cz0DHx6+myFOsI8T3lkgsiaupjmW9+E8YObhds3zH1pdOMh+L7BEkJ3iyLHqwBlmGh/LrGVaKO8bwau+coiz7o3CAactM8+tlejxY0aQ2GWKNieKZxaX3+n4ggQ=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=xjxliwVI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.178
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="xjxliwVI"
Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 16:07:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1;
	t=1779145670;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=43OgO2OF5H7R43ZRhOnt2E+DP2ym+ONP1Bx6PELiuxQ=;
	b=xjxliwVIsTVqpRoDu9W+fAcJvEIbnG0t9OxUSP3cg6HlVZskMXA6QNBB3X+o63maJnj+9H
	vQQpAkHZJLWuVQeW3/Q+dnNPwK0iZCHLtZh5RB6IjW9L7VqDpSoR1Z3e5L3ctzgQX44gzj
	TpYT2Lwyz6vbUVd12Ys23u5fpg93vfw=
X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers.
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Qing Ming <a0yami@mailbox.org>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>, 
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, 
	Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, 
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, 
	Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cgroup/rstat: validate cpu before css_rstat_cpu()
 access
Message-ID: <agubZePrBmStHxhH@linux.dev>
References: <20260515122952.59209-1-a0yami@mailbox.org>
 <20260516070849.106141-1-a0yami@mailbox.org>
 <64f59b64664f769661a8b8cd587c85f8@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-block.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-block+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-block+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <64f59b64664f769661a8b8cd587c85f8@kernel.org>
X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 09:36:36AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> > Qing Ming (1):
> >   cgroup/rstat: validate cpu before css_rstat_cpu() access
> 
> Applied to cgroup/for-7.1-fixes.
> 
> In hindsight, we should have added a separate kfunc wrapper from the
> start instead of tagging css_rstat_updated() with __bpf_kfunc directly,
> which would have avoided the rename. Oh well, it is what it is.

Is it frown upon to change the kfunc signature or remove __bpf_kfunc from a
function? I am assuming we can but better not to, correct?