[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJLZX1UsdqWjCB57PxJQQXnXN5ZMY5M+shnxP6t=wT8yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:01:33 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
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>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] bpf: Remove kfunc support in prologue and epilogue
On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 1:54 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 02:55 PM -08, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I don't have an opinion. I assumed it'd get applied as a batch without
> fast forward, so bisect would be going over merge commits.
I think 'bisect over merge commits' is rarely the case.
It's better to reorder as Eduard suggested just to be safe.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists