Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 1/7/22 8:36 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote: >> Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>> On 1/6/22 12:45 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote: >>>> A set of fixes and updates to powerpc BPF JIT: >>>> - Patches 1-3 fix issues with the existing powerpc JIT and are tagged >>>> for -stable. >>>> - Patch 4 fixes a build issue with bpf selftests on powerpc. >>>> - Patches 5-9 handle some corner cases and make some small improvements. >>>> - Patches 10-13 optimize how function calls are handled in ppc64. >>>> >>>> Patches 7 and 8 were previously posted, and while patch 7 has no >>>> changes, patch 8 has been reworked to handle BPF_EXIT differently. >>> >>> Is the plan to route these via ppc trees? Fwiw, patch 1 and 4 look generic >>> and in general good to me, we could also take these two via bpf-next tree >>> given outside of arch/powerpc/? Whichever works best. >> >> Yes, I would like to route this through the powerpc tree. Though patches 1 and 4 are generic, they primarily affect powerpc and I do not see conflicting changes in bpf-next. Request you to please ack those patches so that Michael can take it through the powerpc tree. > > Ok, works for me. I presume this will end up in the upcoming merge window > anyway, so not too long time until we can sync these back to bpf/bpf-next > trees then. Hmm. This series landed a little late for me to get it into linux-next before the merge window opened. It's mostly small and includes some bug fixes, so I'm not saying it needs to wait for the next merge window, but I would like it to get some testing in linux-next before I ask Linus to pull it. When would you need it all merged into Linus' tree in order to sync up with the bpf tree for the next cycle? I assume as long as it's merged before rc1 that would be sufficient? cheers
