[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87lf39qiwu.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 19:43:45 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
ast@...nel.org
Cc: paulus@...ba.org, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com,
songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kpsingh@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] bpf powerpc: Add BPF_PROBE_MEM support in
powerpc JIT compiler
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
> On 10/4/21 12:49 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
>>> On 9/29/21 1:18 PM, Hari Bathini wrote:
>>>> Patch #1 & #2 are simple cleanup patches. Patch #3 refactors JIT
>>>> compiler code with the aim to simplify adding BPF_PROBE_MEM support.
>>>> Patch #4 introduces PPC_RAW_BRANCH() macro instead of open coding
>>>> branch instruction. Patch #5 & #7 add BPF_PROBE_MEM support for PPC64
>>>> & PPC32 JIT compilers respectively. Patch #6 & #8 handle bad userspace
>>>> pointers for PPC64 & PPC32 cases respectively.
>>>
>>> Michael, are you planning to pick up the series or shall we route via bpf-next?
>>
>> Yeah I'll plan to take it, unless you think there is a strong reason it
>> needs to go via the bpf tree (doesn't look like it from the diffstat).
>
> Sounds good to me, in that case, please also route the recent JIT fixes from
> Naveen through your tree.
Will do.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists