Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 00:09:26 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To:     Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Message-ID: <5ffffc36c3ffa_1eeef2081e@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <20210112154235.2192781-1-jackmanb@google.com>
References: <20210112154235.2192781-1-jackmanb@google.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/11] Atomics for eBPF
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Brendan Jackman wrote:
> Happy new year everyone, and thanks once again for the reviews.
> 
> There's still one unresolved review comment from John[3] but I don't
> think it needs to block the patchset as it stands, it can be a
> separate patch. Hope that's OK.

Its ok on my side if it comes as a follow up. I think it limits the
use cases without it, but no reason to hold up the series IMO.