[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id:
<175271580926.1388574.2871718742808894447.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 01:30:09 +0000
From: patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@...nel.org
To: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>@codeaurora.org
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
martin.lau@...ux.dev, eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org,
yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, puranjay@...nel.org,
xukuohai@...weicloud.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
mykolal@...com, shuah@...nel.org, ebpf@...uxfoundation.org,
thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com,
ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] bpf, arm64: relax constraint in BPF JIT compiler
Hello:
This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2025 10:36:54 +0200 you wrote:
> Hello,
> this series follows up on the one introducing 9+ args for tracing
> programs [1]. It has been observed with this series that there are cases
> for which we can not identify accurately the location of the target
> function arguments to prepare correctly the corresponding BPF
> trampoline. This is the case for example if:
> - the function consumes a struct variable _by value_
> - it is passed on the stack (no more register available for it)
> - it has some __packed__ or __aligned(X)__ attribute
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [1/2] bpf, arm64: remove structs on stack constraint
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/dc704d0cfa43
- [2/2] selftests/bpf: enable tracing_struct tests for arm64
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/4a760d2d7aa6
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists