Re: [PATCH] xsk: Add missing overflow check in xdp_umem_reg

[Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>]

From: Kal Conley <kal.conley@dectris.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:49:29 +0100

>> The code is fine to me.
>> Please resubmit with the fixed subject and expanded commit message.
>> I'd also prefer that you sent v3 as a separate mail, *not* as a reply to
>> this thread.
> 
> Done. I used "bpf" in the subject as you suggested, however I am a bit
> confused by this. Should changes under net/xdp generally use "bpf" in
> the subject?

"bpf" when it's a fix (better to have some real repro, otherwise purely
hypothetical fix can be considered a bpf-next material), "bpf-next" when
it's an improvement / new stuff etc.

Also please don't forget to manually add all the folks who reviewed your
previous versions / were participating in the threads for previous
versions, otherwise they can miss the fact that you posted a new revision.

> 
> Thanks,
> Kal

Thanks,
Olek