[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260128094820.0d32327f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:48:20 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Florent Revest <revest@...gle.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
<daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Menglong Dong
<menglong8.dong@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 bpf-next 0/9] ftrace,bpf: Use single direct ops for
bpf trampolines
On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 15:50:01 +0100
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> Jiri Olsa (9):
> ftrace,bpf: Remove FTRACE_OPS_FL_JMP ftrace_ops flag
> ftrace: Make alloc_and_copy_ftrace_hash direct friendly
> ftrace: Export some of hash related functions
> ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_add function
> ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_del function
> ftrace: Add update_ftrace_direct_mod function
> bpf: Add trampoline ip hash table
> ftrace: Factor ftrace_ops ops_func interface
> bpf,x86: Use single ftrace_ops for direct calls
I reviewed all the above patches with the exception of patch 7 (which was
BPF only). I even ran the entire set through my internal tests and they
passed.
I don't have anything for this merge window that will conflict with this
series, so if you want to push it through the BPF tree, feel free to do so.
For patches 1-6,8,9:
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists