Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/20] bpf: Run exception cleanup landing pads when bpf_throw() unwinds

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 2026-09-23 at 21:34 +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

...

> Sorry, all I hear is a knee jerk reaction to a lot of slop.
> yes. a lot of it is not needed, but invoke approach is no go.
> As I said couple time [ip_start, ip_end] is not a single call insn.
> libbpf patches do a bunch of unnecessary copy paste,
> but that's because we didn't do insn_array support cleanly.
> From libbpf pov bpf_cleanup section shouldn't be any different as
> "one more section with pointers to instructions".
> 
> Sorry, we're not doing new 16-byte insn. We can chat about it
> during the meeting, but I feel it will be a waste of time.

If you simply don't like 16-byte instructions, then yes,
nothing to talk about.

> New insn doesn't reduce amount of slop.

It literally and demonstrably does, I listed the actions that are not
necessary with this encoding in the previous email. No matter which
llm you use more actions needed == more code.

> Ed's example 1k vs 2k is a counter example.
> This is just one llm vs another. Both sucked and both slop.
> Just different amount of it.

Fwiw, it was not a one-shot. The verifier part is curated.
The jit part is whatever codex decided to do with the original series.
I stand by the complexity reduction claim.