Message ID | 20240223131728.116717-1-jhs@mojatatu.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Introducing P4TC (series 1) | expand |
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:17:23 -0500 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > This is the first patchset of two. In this patch we are only submitting 5 > patches which touch the general TC code given these are trivial. We will be > posting a second patchset which handles the P4 objects and associated infra > (which includes 10 patches that we have already been posting to hit the 15 > limit). Don't use the limit as a justification for questionable tactics :| If there's still BPF in it, it's not getting merged without BPF maintainers's acks. So we're going to merge these 5 and then what? BTW the diffstat at the end of the commit message is from the full set.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 07:38:02AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:17:23 -0500 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > This is the first patchset of two. In this patch we are only submitting 5 > > patches which touch the general TC code given these are trivial. We will be > > posting a second patchset which handles the P4 objects and associated infra > > (which includes 10 patches that we have already been posting to hit the 15 > > limit). > > Don't use the limit as a justification for questionable tactics :| > If there's still BPF in it, it's not getting merged without BPF > maintainers's acks. So we're going to merge these 5 and then what? > > BTW the diffstat at the end of the commit message is from the full set. ...and it is followed by the current one, but that old scary diffstat sould better go away ;) >
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:38 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:17:23 -0500 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > This is the first patchset of two. In this patch we are only submitting 5 > > patches which touch the general TC code given these are trivial. We will be > > posting a second patchset which handles the P4 objects and associated infra > > (which includes 10 patches that we have already been posting to hit the 15 > > limit). > > Don't use the limit as a justification for questionable tactics :| The discussion with Daniel was on removing the XDP referencing in the filter which in my last email exchange i offered to remove. I believe that removing the XDP reference should resolve the issue. Instead of waiting for Daniel to respond (the last response took a while), at the last minute i decided to only do the first five which are trivial and have been posted for over a year now and have been reviewd by multiple people. I had no intention to make this a conspiracy of any sort. > If there's still BPF in it, it's not getting merged without BPF > maintainers's acks. So we're going to merge these 5 and then what? > Look, this is getting to be too much navigation (which is what scares most newbies from participating and i have been here for 100 years now). I dont have a problem removing the XDP reference - but now we are treading into subsystem territories; this is about P4 abstraction and the infra around it, it is really not about eBPF. We dont need anything "new" from ebpf i.e none of these patches make any eBPF changes. This is a tc classifier that happens to use ebpf, whose domain is that? The exhausting part is some feedback is "you do it our way or else" thing: I apologize i dont want to lump everyone in that pool, and it is nothing to do specifically with ebpf people rather a failure in reaching compromise within this community. > BTW the diffstat at the end of the commit message is from the full set Yeah, sorry - this was last minute "should i send all or just these five to make space for the remainder 5 that we havent posted since V8". We have 5 more patches on top of what we posted on V10 - merging these would open the door to post the rest with 15 limit. I can repost all 15 if that works better. cheers, jamal