From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D2A6C433F5 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4JVZmp5VY6z30LS for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 18:37:14 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=tUGpS0kf; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=tUGpS0kf; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JVZlv6j0Gz30Bc for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 18:36:27 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 2076cMtQ017958; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:36:08 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : subject : to : cc : references : in-reply-to : mime-version : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=U36coC2K3bgPp6+lil/Brl/6/u+WSFE+iAHncxbWons=; b=tUGpS0kfHYxht0KG7Ak6UAx9gTVn046T2aNhAfdgzxj4x34PNcnY5QzWSr1ZHFmh1QiI TE6iowSvlrg2PVzdSVXhgTeEII0Bi58NUnxr6EIDJ072p7E/zPjYsfbvjbeHCBfIVvcJ KoCT4L1vS461Fv4iIyCQNUBEsY+58AQiU/Nh/NICtgUsPVlGFXXA8S3Tasu7Qjo78YfU l+kEuGawp4rsp2wicX+xT3lQXGHI7g/9Hs1cK1F782FS29iIOr5iWvDrYEnYznFs4zEC TOHrEfefBfvu/1nlSskPBcGMkgTYabEShfmbsim6BeluAQDr7mhfwWeoa/xQdygNQx18 Sw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3de5bqk32k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 07 Jan 2022 07:36:08 +0000 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 2077MNHt004346; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:36:08 GMT Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3de5bqk31n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 07 Jan 2022 07:36:07 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 2077YFa4020341; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:36:05 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3de5gfuu0e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 07 Jan 2022 07:36:05 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 2077a3A638535464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:36:03 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC16AE056; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:36:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB02AE053; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:36:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.43.90.227]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 07:36:02 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2022 13:06:01 +0530 From: "Naveen N. Rao" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] powerpc/bpf: Some fixes and updates To: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Michael Ellerman References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/v0.16-1-g4d6b06ad (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1641540707.ewk8tpqmvl.naveen@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: JWN2KhdmtEzlXJvEgi-GbCZczd7eVmr9 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: _a4BW3tAt9FMOboixZVikopQ3TVDhfvs X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2022-01-07_02,2022-01-06_01,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=949 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2201070053 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ykaliuta@redhat.com, johan.almbladh@anyfinetworks.com, Jiri Olsa , song@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Hari Bathini Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Hi Daniel, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > Hi Naveen, >=20 > 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. >>=20 >> Patches 7 and 8 were previously posted, and while patch 7 has no >> changes, patch 8 has been reworked to handle BPF_EXIT differently. >=20 > Is the plan to route these via ppc trees? Fwiw, patch 1 and 4 look generi= c > 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=20 1 and 4 are generic, they primarily affect powerpc and I do not see=20 conflicting changes in bpf-next. Request you to please ack those patches=20 so that Michael can take it through the powerpc tree. Thanks! - Naveen