From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752186AbbEJC3E (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2015 22:29:04 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:47556 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752007AbbEJC3B (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2015 22:29:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 22:28:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20150509.222858.26253293963482182.davem@davemloft.net> To: nschichan@freebox.fr Cc: linux@arm.linux.org.uk, dborkman@redhat.com, ast@plumgrid.com, mgherzan@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: net: add JIT support for loads from struct seccomp_data. From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1431003613-16554-1-git-send-email-nschichan@freebox.fr> References: <1431003613-16554-1-git-send-email-nschichan@freebox.fr> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.6 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Sat, 09 May 2015 19:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Nicolas Schichan Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 15:00:13 +0200 > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Schichan > --- > > This patch was first sent as part of a serie modifying the core > seccomp code to allow the use of the classic BPF JIT. As the core > changes have been submitted to netdev by Daniel Borkmann, it is now > time to re-submit this patch separately. > > While not physically dependent of the core seccomp changes they are > needed for the code added in this patch to be triggered. Where would you like this to be applied, my tree? This is an ongoing situation, where people have traditionally not consistently wanted bpf JIT patches to go into the networking tree. So I beg everyone posting such things to netdev to be _clear_ and _explicit_ about whether you expect me to integrate the patch or not. Thanks.