On 2024/2/21 01:33, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > 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 Sorry for my misunderstanding. I will send PATCH v2 instead, which is against bpf-next truly. I'll read the doc again to do better in the future. Thanks, Leon
