lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:55:36 -0700
From:	Z Lim <>
To:	Catalin Marinas <>
Cc:	Alexei Starovoitov <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	Jiang Liu <>,
	AKASHI Takahiro <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,
	Chema Gonzalez <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] arm64: eBPF JIT compiler

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Catalin Marinas
<> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 04:49:29PM +0100, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Will Deacon <> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:28:06PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote:
>> >> This series applies against net-next and is tested working
>> >> with lib/test_bpf on ARMv8 Foundation Model.
>> >
>> > Looks like it works on my Juno board too, so:
>> >
>> >   Acked-by: Will Deacon <>
>> >
>> > for the series.
>> >
>> > It's a bit late for 3.17 now, so I guess we'll queue this for 3.18 (which
>> > also means the dependency on -next isn't an issue). Perhaps you could repost
>> > around -rc3?
>> Thanks for testing! Nice to see it working on real hw.
>> I'm not sure why you're proposing a 4+ week delay. The patches
>> will rot instead of getting used and tested. Imo it makes sense to
>> get them into net-next now for 3.17.
>> JIT is disabled by sysctl by default anyway.
> We normally like some patches (especially new functionality) to sit in
> linux-next for a while before the mering window (ideally starting with
> -rc4 or -rc5). We are at -rc6 already, so getting close to the 3.17
> merging window.
> Another aspect is that the arm64/bpf branch depends on the net tree, so
> it can't easily go in via the arm64 tree for 3.17 (3.18 would not be a
> problem).

Hi Catalin, I take it you prefer this series going through arm64 tree,
targeting 3.18, is that right?

I understand your preference to have it sitting in linux-next for a
longer period for arm64 material, I'll repost this again after 3.17 so
it gets more exposure in linux-next.

BTW, are you open to this series going through net tree? I'm
(preemptively) asking because during development of this series, I've
had to rebase a couple times against net-next to handle dependencies.
Or is the general practice to handle conflicts in linux-next itself?

> --
> Catalin
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists