Hello, Alexei.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 08:21:21AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
quoted
lol I should have read the whole thread before replying twice. Sorry
about that. Yeah, if we can still rename it, let's do "under". It's
more intuitive and gives us the room to implement the real "in" test
if ever necessary in the future.
agree. Thanks for explaining 'in' vs 'under' terminology.
since we can still rename skb_in_cgroup we should do it.
Sounds good to me.
and since that was my only nit for this patch.
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
FWIW,
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
All 3 patches should go via net-next and to avoid conflicts 1/3 can be
in cgroup tree as well (if you think there will be conflicts).
We did that in the past with tip and net-next and it worked out well.
Yeah, just route it through net-next. If other changes ever need it,
I'll include the commit in cgroup tree.
Thanks.
--
tejun