From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 8BF2A1A4F0F; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723737284; cv=none; b=ZeDNnXZbxiIgZnfEgaRkIHo3jR0uQLAONi3y1taHDmQv/IAg5tR3HeDIpcmtkixY9/+E8O6GC2v8Iv0rQ/9MDs8fpzn+Azn/GuydCdJ7i+hAk3a6+oGZ/iZvGc6bU1CUF0/8DuAhQuoWqF9sw164fE1Rah1QMJmY4bdLOORcBzs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723737284; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8fxD0SycfeG1dlS20JGKOC5Kh4/oDqEslSOmZnRUIVg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qbZxCM+uTIUa0lri0uvQjFXPDHZ6fI98GbiP3W682tF/gHgefhFnGOAKWhT4aKFdp1jX4KMly8Tuvy+RXvgFF7QogLa4d/aom1SCo1y6fKMgNzXZ1Lf5+hSADrF5sT/gJM427Te3btYf/PDnFgIY9xVBlFofh1+9wyGy3fnzSg8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rI2dR1Pz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rI2dR1Pz" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8EAB5C4AF09; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:54:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1723737284; bh=8fxD0SycfeG1dlS20JGKOC5Kh4/oDqEslSOmZnRUIVg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rI2dR1PzQUeM1RP4ybWzRG+tetOuN9ad/hL8WdZuoldo1+7/SO39+Aqn2yVy5pJAm r4m8KW8QGAlqED8d4spSbbvpDCLdWuSQuKdg0fG0oGg8TX1TyWTxPQOsM4MuSSVK4d JnFVE11k9gE4NnsEpnNuBJdyF0oO8pEgREQCjtmXX4a9xFshT+5g9E9niFvLcpsAEb iBb+gw4abGmxJ/UgZPCyuj91z+6EnnsLqAXDdbcV1h0H5VAsBfeOTv2UP+JszzDRNn KfrV7acvEruBVRIvONCphHKUQ7ztJH39dXILdV5bfgZDbIecGG/DxlSQDNZjX7/fXS PKG4cwD7j0N0Q== Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:54:39 +0100 From: Simon Horman To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: bpf , Network Development , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Stephen Rothwell , Daniel Borkmann , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: bpf-next experiment Message-ID: <20240815155439.GM632411@kernel.org> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:32:00PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > Hi All, > > Couple years ago folks suggested that bpf-next should be > a separate pull request to increase subsystem visibility. > Back then we rejected the idea since many networking related > changes required bpf core changes. Things are different now. > bpf kfuncs can be added independently by various subsystems, > verifier additions are mainly driven by sched-ext, > so it's time to give it a shot. It's an experiment. > If things don't work out as expected we will go back to > the old model of feeding bpf trees through net/net-next trees. > > So here is the plan: > > 1. bpf fixes go directly to Linus (skipping net tree) and > net/bpf trees are fast forwarded afterwards as usual. > > 2. Non-networking bpf commits land in bpf-next/master branch. > It will form bpf-next PR during the merge window. > > 3. Networking related commits (like XDP) land in bpf-next/net branch. > They will be PR-ed to net-next and ffwded from net-next > as we do today. All these patches will get to mainline > via net-next PR. Hi Alexei, Nice plan :) I wonder if, bpf-next/net-next might be a more intuitive name, as the proposed branch is closely related to net-next. OTOH, mabey one '-next', as per your proposal, is enough :) > > 4. bpf-next/master and bpf-next/net branches are manually > merged into bpf-next/for-next branch. > This step achieves two objectives: > - bpf maintainers watch for conflicts between /master and /net > - Stephen Rothwell continues taking /for-next branch into linux-next > as usual > > bpf CI will run tests against 4 trees (instead of 2): > bpf, bpf-next/master, bpf-next/net, bpf-next/for-next. > This is wip. Watch for more "Checks" in patchwork. > > By the merge window in September we will reassess > the situation and if it's still worth doing we will > proceed with PR formed from bpf-next/master. > If not, we will PR bpf-next/master into net-next and > call it a failed experiment. > > We feel that there are more positives to this process > than headaches, so fingers crossed. >