From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta1.migadu.com (out-71.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E0034E06E4 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 16:22:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792167757; cv=none; b=ivjbAPETIT/EyGj0WB2DqQJWcUKQC6wMS6tvlMs2nYItHtreIh/6mG24b9EgUKPftbJ61T6RxVlPQRbIEXsbB6PFpIsFkf1OGY330FdmsDHg+W29QX6c8fdb9M6RpoIuk3prYRdP4SbJUGfXTO3jKiwCLvQu5VFSFqChxP4eilw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792167757; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YoHan/PNaYv9KhMqN8U0voMBKICl7UrwUJhE3M67gSc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=sv6u3JJoLrHzTffm5IFvcoRTv5G+a82+2k3YvqKTWzI7g7KfGOa0BZXZXX9sqjeHcOmh9FKtHzx5vhNTHNq/pxrcIZodqoyazDRJW516aXkq1pEpvRRGzBok36bP3KBqkdwAC3li5bKXdbBV7GloCAh3itDfD6N7/MMmT80gICc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=k/Ilo99f; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="k/Ilo99f" X-Envelope-To: bpf@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=YoHan/PNaYv9KhMqN8U0voMBKICl7UrwUJhE3M67gSc=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1792167751; v=1; x=1792772551; b=k/Ilo99fN2RmB9xg1CHnjweoxKc3Zt9CiGfUWTZpjinz1N+UWPZcCm1uUFUR8OZDdx/i/aVN QD1JDzQOpJLqqjvYT7h4tNa8GJiQN7j0CU0t62qmR1oCDuZW9FMYlNVdrHDO7Y7O9jtKPQr5cdb u3ZXdLk+elToi03c5/XJTWkY= X-Envelope-To: bpf@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id 5604be9e0a5dd168; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 16:22:30 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: 5604be9e0a5dd168 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:22:27 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/11] bpf: Follow up by-value struct and __int128 argument support To: Alexei Starovoitov , bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , Eduard Zingerman , kernel-team@fb.com References: <20261013170910.2126673-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-GB From: Yonghong Song In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/16/26 9:00 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 08:50 AM Yonghong Song wrote: >>> This is not enabled on s390, right? >> Okay, I will enable s390. > No need. > I meant that all users of LO/HI are x86 and arm64 only, > so it's dead code. Just drop it. > s390 JIT has no bpf_jit_supports_stack_args(), so with clang that > has stack args tracing_struct_int128_tgt.c won't load there. > s390 can be a follow up if there is a real use case. In patch 7, we have the following code: +__noinline __u64 callee_odd(__u64 a, struct int128_arg v, __u64 b) +{ + return a + (__u64)v.v * 2 + (__u64)((unsigned __int128)v.v >> 64) * 3 + + b * 4; +} This one can exercise for s390x, x86_64 and arm64. Do you think it is worthwhile? Two other bpf functions, which has stack arguments, need rejection with ... && !defined(__TARGET_ARCH_s390)