On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:29:35AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:40:39AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > I actually wish we could rename skb_in_cgroup to skb_under_cgroup. If we > > > ever > > > introduced a check for absolute membership versus ancestral membership, > > > what > > > would we call that? > > > > That option is, by the way, still on the table for -net tree, since 4.8 is > > not > > released yet, so it could still be renamed into BPF_FUNC_skb_under_cgroup. > > > > Then you could make this one here for -net-next as > > "BPF_FUNC_current_under_cgroup". > > > > Tejun, Alexei? > > 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. and since that was my only nit for this patch. Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@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. Daniel or Martin, do you mind preparing in->under renaming patch for net? Thanks!
