On 05/22/2013 09:19 AM, David Miller wrote:

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:14:58 -0700

quoted

On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:07:48 -0700 (PDT) David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:38 -0700

quoted

Nicolas, I think the patches need a re-check so I'll drop the versions
which I presently have.  Please refresh, retest and resend when
convenient?  It'll need to be against linux-next, which is where the
conflicting (vfree/module_free) changes have occurred.

How about working against net-next and submitting your patches to netdev
just like the rest of the world?

Well that's probably practical.  But the patchset is a seccomp
enhancement for (at present) ARM.  Not exactly net stuff, or anything
which netdev readers are likely to spend a lot of time testing and
reviewing.

The seccomp BPF bits we reviewed and were interested in completely, because
we're going to have to support JIT'ing all of that stuff on every cpu and
we're interested how it fits into the existing BPF codes and infrastructure.

+1

seccomp is wired with BPF (JITs in arch/*/net/ + net/core/filter.c) and that's
part of networking, so they should go through netdev. This makes it also way
easier for review.