Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] bpf: remove the do_idr_lock parameter from bpf_prog_free_id()
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 12:58 PM <sdf(a)google.com> wrote:
On 01/09, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 2:45 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf(a)google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:44 AM Paul Moore <paul(a)paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It was determined that the do_idr_lock parameter to
> > > bpf_prog_free_id() was not necessary as it should always be true.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf(a)google.com>
> >
> > nit: I believe it's been suggested several times by different people
> As much as I would like to follow all of the kernel relevant mailing
> lists, I'm short about 30hrs in a day to do that, and you were the
> first one I saw suggesting that change :)
Sure, sure, I'm just stating it for the other people on the CC. So maybe
we can drop this line when applying.
That's fine with me. To be honest, you folks can do whatever tweaks
you want to these patches and that's okay with me; or even just dump
them and rewrite them as you see fit, if that's easier. I'm only
concerned with getting the regression fixed, who fixes it isn't
something I'm worried about.
--
paul-moore.com