From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 3/3] ARM: net: bpf_jit_32: support BPF_S_ANC_SECCOMP_LD_W instruction Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:16:31 +0200 Message-ID: <517E487F.2050700@redhat.com> References: <1367029047-14830-1-git-send-email-xi.wang@gmail.com> <1367029047-14830-4-git-send-email-xi.wang@gmail.com> <517B6FC5.7070003@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , Will Drewry , Eric Dumazet , Russell King , David Laight , "David S. Miller" , Andrew Morton , Nicolas Schichan To: Xi Wang Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 04/27/2013 08:32 PM, Xi Wang wrote: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> Besides all that, I think I also pointed you to a patch that already made >> it in for ARM, not sure why you keep posting the ARM JIT implementation? > > That's why I asked in the other post if you wanted me to rebase > against linux-next or net-next. The ARM part 3/3 is not needed if > rebased against linux-next with Nicolas's patches. This discussion was only in terms of the unified interface, not the seccomp JIT itself. If you speak about ``patch'' (and not ``patch set'') I assumed you were only referring to the first one.