[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQL5Ms+3N9CYK=YTCMfWYfd=BEzXNggB2Sg+i_obVfUb8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 09:22:12 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: "Lecomte, Arnaud" <contact@...aud-lcm.com>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Eduard <eddyz87@...il.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
syzbot+c9b724fbb41cf2538b7b@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 1/2] bpf: refactor max_depth computation in bpf_get_stack()
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 9:20 AM Lecomte, Arnaud <contact@...aud-lcm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/09/2025 18:12, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:52 AM Arnaud Lecomte <contact@...aud-lcm.com> wrote:
> >> A new helper function stack_map_calculate_max_depth() that
> >> computes the max depth for a stackmap.
> >>
> >> Changes in v2:
> >> - Removed the checking 'map_size % map_elem_size' from
> >> stack_map_calculate_max_depth
> >> - Changed stack_map_calculate_max_depth params name to be more generic
> >>
> >> Changes in v3:
> >> - Changed map size param to size in max depth helper
> >>
> >> Changes in v4:
> >> - Fixed indentation in max depth helper for args
> >>
> >> Changes in v5:
> >> - Bound back trace_nr to num_elem in __bpf_get_stack
> >> - Make a copy of sysctl_perf_event_max_stack
> >> in stack_map_calculate_max_depth
> >>
> >> Changes in v6:
> >> - Restrained max_depth computation only when required
> >> - Additional cleanup from Song in __bpf_get_stack
> > This is not a refactor anymore.
> > Pls don't squash different things into one patch.
> > Keep refactor as patch 1, and another cleanup as patch 2.
>
> The main problem is that patch 2 is not a cleanup too. It is a bug fix
> so it doesn't really
> fit either.
> We could maybe split this patch into 2 new patches but I don't really
> like this idea.
> If we decide to stick to 2 patches format, I don't have any preference
> which patch's scope
> should be extended.
I wasn't proposing to squash cleanup into patch 2.
Make 3 patches where each one is doing one thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists