From: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v1 1/2] bpf: Fix tracing of kfuncs with implicit args
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:34:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <96c07e3a-88f5-4929-aa53-0efb2c2bb0cd@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DJV2Q54OF8BU.1H6KXCS93P3N6@gmail.com>
On 7/10/26 10:40 AM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Fri Jul 10, 2026 at 7:34 PM CEST, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
>> On 7/10/26 10:23 AM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Also, why not do it for BPF_TRACE_ITER case as well? I just feel keeping it
>>> consistent may outweigh figuring out whether it's necessary in that case or not,
>>> etc.
>>
>>
>> I mentioned this in the patch description:
>>
>> The BPF_TRACE_ITER case distills a registered iterator's
>> prototype, and bpf_struct_ops_desc_init() distills the
>> function-pointer members of a struct_ops type. Neither is
>> a kfunc, and so can't have implicit arguments.
>>
>
> Yeah, I saw that, but abstracting that inside the function and not having to
> think from the caller about those details would be better. That said, I don't
> have any strong preference, it is obviously correct as it is.
Let's keep the fix patch minimal. I think we can do a more thoughtful
refactoring as a follow up for bpf-next. Hopefully I'll find time for
this in not so distant future.
Just sent a v2 with a module ref fix and a brief cover.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Please supply a cover letter in the next version too since you're sending
>>> multiple patches.
>>
>> I used the first patch's message as a cover letter, since it's
>> just a fix + selftest pair.
>>
>> The series could be split further into refactoring changes, but I thought
>> it'll be easier to backport if the fix is in a single self-contained patch.
>>
>> I think we want the fix to get into 7.2, and backport it to 7.1.
>>
>> If it's ok to carry separate refactoring patches there, then I'll split.
>> Kartikeya, wdyt?
>>
>
> You can still keep the patches as is, but just add a cover letter, it will not
> affect backporting. The cover letter is just to summarize the series and the fix
> in the merge commit. Also, my understanding is that with the Fixes: tag, it
> should automatically be picked up for stable kernels.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-10 19:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-10 0:59 [PATCH bpf v1 1/2] bpf: Fix tracing of kfuncs with implicit args Ihor Solodrai
2026-07-10 0:59 ` [PATCH bpf v1 2/2] selftests/bpf: Cover tracing implicit kfunc args Ihor Solodrai
2026-07-10 1:21 ` [PATCH bpf v1 1/2] bpf: Fix tracing of kfuncs with implicit args sashiko-bot
2026-07-10 17:08 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-07-10 17:23 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-10 17:34 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-07-10 17:40 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-10 19:34 ` Ihor Solodrai [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=96c07e3a-88f5-4929-aa53-0efb2c2bb0cd@linux.dev \
--to=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox