Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2023/2/20 22:34, Björn Töpel wrote: >> Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> As another important missing piece of RV64 JIT, kfunc allow bpf programs >>> call kernel functions. For now, RV64 is sufficient to enable it. >> >> Thanks Lehui! >> >> Maybe we can reword/massage the commit message a bit? What do you think >> about something like: >> >> "Now that the BPF trampoline is supported by RISC-V, it is possible to >> use BPF programs with kfunc calls. >> > > kfunc and bpf trampoline are functionally independent. kfunc [1], like > bpf helper functions, allows bpf programs to call exported kernel > functions, while bpf trampoline provides a more efficient way than > kprobe to act as a mediator between kernel functions and bpf programs, > and between bpf programs. > > In fact, it was already supported before the bpf trampoline > implementation, I just turned it on. Good point. I guess my (incorrect) kfunc mental model was that struct_ops and kfunc were tightly coupled. (Then again, w/o struct_ops working kfunc is a bit half-working in my view.) Fair enough. I'm still a bit confused about the commit message, but happy with the patch. Acked-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
