Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 2/3] xfrm: interface: Add unstable helpers for setting/getting XFRM metadata from TC-BPF

From: Martin KaFai Lau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 11:10:13 -0800

On 11/29/22 8:15 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:50:01 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote:
>>> Please tag for bpf-next
>>
>> This is a change to xfrm ipsec, so it should go
>> through the ipsec-next tree, unless there is
>> a good reason for handling that different.

The set is mostly depending on the bpf features.  Patch 2 is mostly depending on 
bpf and patch 3 is also a bpf selftest.  I assume the set should have been 
developed based on the bpf-next tree instead.  It is also good to have the test 
run in bpf CI sooner than later to bar on-going bpf changes that may break it. 
It is the reason I think bpf-next makes more sense.

If it is preferred to go through ipsec-next, the set should at least be tested 
against the bpf-next before posting.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/[email-masked]/