Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Mar 2023 17:30:53 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] xsk: Add missing overflow check in xdp_umem_reg | From | Alexander Lobakin <> |
| |
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
| |