From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029D4C43217 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 07:12:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229736AbiLAHMQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2022 02:12:16 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33538 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229678AbiLAHMP (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2022 02:12:15 -0500 Received: from a.mx.secunet.com (a.mx.secunet.com [62.96.220.36]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B11756558; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 23:12:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136F32052D; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:12:11 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (a.mx.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cDh5eURpbMep; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:12:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailout2.secunet.com (mailout2.secunet.com [62.96.220.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85AD9204E5; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:12:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from cas-essen-01.secunet.de (unknown [10.53.40.201]) by mailout2.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D52E80004A; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:12:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) by cas-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:12:10 +0100 Received: from gauss2.secunet.de (10.182.7.193) by mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:12:09 +0100 Received: by gauss2.secunet.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7134D31829C4; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:12:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:12:09 +0100 From: Steffen Klassert To: Martin KaFai Lau CC: Eyal Birger , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Jakub Kicinski Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 2/3] xfrm: interface: Add unstable helpers for setting/getting XFRM metadata from TC-BPF Message-ID: <20221201071209.GR424616@gauss3.secunet.de> References: <20221128160501.769892-1-eyal.birger@gmail.com> <20221128160501.769892-3-eyal.birger@gmail.com> <20221129095001.GV704954@gauss3.secunet.de> <20221129081510.56b1025e@kernel.org> <953fb82c-0871-748e-e0f0-6ecca6ec80ee@linux.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <953fb82c-0871-748e-e0f0-6ecca6ec80ee@linux.dev> X-ClientProxiedBy: cas-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.202) To mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:10:13AM -0800, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On 11/29/22 8:15 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:50:01 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote: > > > > Please tag for bpf-next > > > > > > This is a change to xfrm ipsec, so it should go > > > through the ipsec-next tree, unless there is > > > a good reason for handling that different. > > The set is mostly depending on the bpf features. Patch 2 is mostly > depending on bpf and patch 3 is also a bpf selftest. I assume the set > should have been developed based on the bpf-next tree instead. It is also > good to have the test run in bpf CI sooner than later to bar on-going bpf > changes that may break it. It is the reason I think bpf-next makes more > sense. As said, if there is a good reason, I'm ok with routing it through bpf-next. Looks like there is a good readon, so go with bpf-next.