[PATCH 00/13] powerpc/bpf: Some fixes and updates

[Michael Ellerman]

Daniel Borkmann <daniel at iogearbox.net> writes:
> On 1/7/22 8:36 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Patches 7 and 8 were previously posted, and while patch 7 has no
>>>> changes, patch 8 has been reworked to handle BPF_EXIT differently.
>>>
>>> Is the plan to route these via ppc trees? Fwiw, patch 1 and 4 look generic
>>> 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 1 and 4 are generic, they primarily affect powerpc and I do not see conflicting changes in bpf-next. Request you to please ack those patches so that Michael can take it through the powerpc tree.
>
> Ok, works for me. I presume this will end up in the upcoming merge window
> anyway, so not too long time until we can sync these back to bpf/bpf-next
> trees then.

Hmm. This series landed a little late for me to get it into linux-next
before the merge window opened.

It's mostly small and includes some bug fixes, so I'm not saying it
needs to wait for the next merge window, but I would like it to get some
testing in linux-next before I ask Linus to pull it.

When would you need it all merged into Linus' tree in order to sync up
with the bpf tree for the next cycle? I assume as long as it's merged
before rc1 that would be sufficient?

cheers