[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8eb725d8d0878a7a1b582fdfacf05d20a2542304.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 14:55:29 -0800
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
<daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii
Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP
Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo
<haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Amery Hung
<ameryhung@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...udflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] bpf: Remove kfunc support in prologue and
epilogue
On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 20:53 +0100, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> Remove add_kfunc_in_insns() and its call sites in convert_ctx_accesses().
> This function was used to register kfuncs found in prologue and epilogue
> instructions, but is no longer needed now that we use direct helper calls
> via BPF_EMIT_CALL instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
> ---
I think that patches #3 and #4 have to be swapped, otherwise there is
a selftest failure when only patches #1-3 are applied:
#281/17 pro_epilogue/syscall_pro_epilogue:FAIL
If we want to keep selftests passing for arbitrary bisects.
Reviewed-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists