On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:14:03 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> Using the macro for other tracepoints use to be more concise.
> No functional change.
The merge window for 6.9 has started and we try not to apply patches
to net-next during the merge window. Please repost in 2 weeks, once
Linus has tagged
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:13:55 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> Yesterday, I posted two series to do two kinds of things. They are not
> the same. Maybe you get me wrong :S
Ah, my bad, sorry about that. I see that they are different now.
One is v1 the other v2, both targeting tcp tracing... Easy to miss
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:28:28 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> Before this, we miss some cases where the TCP layer could send rst but
> we cannot trace it. So I decided to complete it :)
>
> v2
> 1. fix spelling mistakes
Not only do you post it before we "officially" open net-next but
also ignoring the
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:31:38 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> It's based on top of
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=840182
Please post as RFC if there's a dependency.
We don't maintain patch queues for people.
--
pw-bot: cr
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:08:01 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > - TP_PROTO(const struct sock *sk, const struct sk_buff *skb),
> > + TP_PROTO(
> > + const struct sock *sk,
> > + const struct sk_buff *skb,
> > + void *location),
>
> Very minor nit: the above lines
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:30:02 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> I'm not sure why the patch series has been changed to 'Changes
> Requested', until now I don't think I need to change something.
>
> Should I repost this series (keeping the v6 tag) and then wait for
> more comments?
If Eric doesn't like it
