From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from www62.your-server.de (www62.your-server.de [213.133.104.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E37E0181CE1; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 21:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.133.104.62 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714425490; cv=none; b=ThuPxXnIHF0rdiCQ0qIVJSUDrC2UaiBNOzy9jLRHEX5wZ7pPTerKCRfFBfaWjE6bEGzp+CbjBoXURphOvcNXOn9zy78X99PaRNACguTae9kojSINRVhsyoArqyeQJlcrTf87FNiNFl0f0TxifLwmMvuyoywDOGuX4UR89WNkZ64= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714425490; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Y40YJgGC9bzAP4rPt/6nXx9ttt0Mma/zB+bYAHHcA5Y=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=t2ck4Os2shqTa2/2r5OfJ6CKtwwKJ2TsOKveUNub9sKIaVT7uDJbdzkD+kUHzTUEx8FcS8/ufxh7aRt79APFkuo+ro/n5celt9GPIHXfsAeOFygbRyaArMroLSo7BQbw7VuXNy7y/Hb86UnmiE3cvmXoVI2z2qxg9wGJ8B2cmeo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=iogearbox.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iogearbox.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iogearbox.net header.i=@iogearbox.net header.b=mY35Ux28; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.133.104.62 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=iogearbox.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iogearbox.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iogearbox.net header.i=@iogearbox.net header.b="mY35Ux28" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iogearbox.net; s=default2302; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=GBcSRXrIbN5ppfuE9I4mOD41eAds0UlUcMYleADEdTk=; b=mY35Ux286LTU8BU4NPTHXJg1YA uxBtU3DT7PYrRpV97HYPut+lsCawjmQEcalWz/aZABK9k3vOMr6PvpgW5LzxgUnjoIwftRJkYJseV ynprCZ1GMb/bLbBIael7MdOwKitNcjk74prXe6XBOaZEp9E4RFuV02ByoKYpnJLUfByAPHSDS2tT9 +wQlaBQ6jxep6IdnIrDc+t2XpdqwTOQ1latOfGpDRJkHkHfTqFGHZhF9LWQ2IBwqPeQwMgNFHzuK4 HLA0krTnmBSGQdAoAyMln4/L2Udpnsp2GRyQKWOlDuG2e0ef+ljX9pdDm2HUlbb8j2jxKXj1kIVul Dd3gRqng==; Received: from sslproxy06.your-server.de ([78.46.172.3]) by www62.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1s1YND-000C1H-4n; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 23:17:56 +0200 Received: from [178.197.249.41] (helo=linux.home) by sslproxy06.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1s1YNo-00HXdP-0T; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 23:17:56 +0200 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net tree To: Jakub Kicinski , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , David Miller , Paolo Abeni , bpf , Networking , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Martin KaFai Lau , Puranjay Mohan , Puranjay Mohan References: <20240429114939.210328b0@canb.auug.org.au> <20240429115643.7df77e08@kernel.org> From: Daniel Borkmann Message-ID: <9f6f6d23-269b-bdff-89ad-7e31223a47e9@iogearbox.net> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 23:17:55 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20240429115643.7df77e08@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.103.10/27260/Mon Apr 29 10:23:47 2024) On 4/29/24 8:56 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:49:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> +u64 __weak bpf_arch_uaddress_limit(void) >> +{ >> +#if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE) >> + return TASK_SIZE; >> +#else >> + return 0; >> +#endif >> +} >> + >> + bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn, bool in_arena) >> + { >> + return false; >> + } > > Thanks! FTR I plan to used the inverse order, if that matters.. Yeap, that looks cleaner, same for the signature in the header given the others prefixed with bpf_jit_supports_*. Thanks, Daniel