Re: [PATCH RFC v7 net-next 00/28] BPF syscall

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2014 7:29 PM, "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ingo, David,
>>
>> posting whole thing again as RFC to get feedback on syscall only.
>> If syscall bpf(int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size) is ok,
>> I'll split them into small chunks as requested and will repost without RFC.
>
> IMO it's much easier to review a syscall if we just look at a
> specification of what it does.  The code is, in some sense, secondary.

'specification of what it does'... hmm, you mean beyond what's
there in commit logs and in Documentation/networking/filter.txt ?
Aren't samples at the end give an idea on 'what it does'?
I'm happy to add 'specification', I just don't understand yet what
it suppose to talk about beyond what's already written.
I understand that the patches are missing explanation on 'why'
the syscall is being added, but I don't think it's what you're asking...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/