On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 5:43 AM Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Finally, here's the diff against latest bpf-next with asm to handle > percpu tail_call_cnt: It is not against bpf-next. > /* Number of bytes that will be skipped on tailcall */ > -#define X86_TAIL_CALL_OFFSET (22 + ENDBR_INSN_SIZE) There is no such thing in bpf-next. Please make a proper patch post following the rules in Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst
