Re: [PATCH v2] docs/bpf: clarify ret handling in LSM BPF programs

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:03 AM Ariel Silver <arielsilver77@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Just so I understand.
> 1) The docs are indeed wrong, correct?

It's arguable, but removing if (ret...) check
from the example is worth doing.

> 2) Any idea why I get an automatic response of "CONFLICTS" when I send
> my patch? Even though im 1000% sure there are no conlicts

The patch doesn't apply to bpf-next tree.
Pls use the right tree as a base for your patch.