Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1600962 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] MIPS: BPF: JIT fixes and improvements.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] MIPS: BPF: JIT fixes and improvements. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-03-15 01:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] MIPS: BPF: JIT fixes and improvements. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-03-15 01:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] MIPS: BPF: JIT fixes and improvements. Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> - 2017-03-15 16:30 +0100

#1600962 — Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] MIPS: BPF: JIT fixes and improvements.

From: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:21:39 -0700

> Changes from v1:
> 
>   - Use unsigned access for SKF_AD_HATYPE
> 
>   - Added three more patches for other problems found.
> 
> 
> Testing the BPF JIT on Cavium OCTEON (mips64) with the test-bpf module
> identified some failures and unimplemented features.
> 
> With this patch set we get:
> 
>      test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [85/297 JIT'ed]
> 
> Both big and little endian tested.
> 
> We still lack eBPF support, but this is better than nothing.

What tree are you targetting with these changes?  Do you expect
them to go via the MIPS or the net-next tree?

Please be explicit about this in the future.

Thank you.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1600966

From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:34:02 -0700

> On 03/14/2017 05:29 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:21:39 -0700
>>
>>> Changes from v1:
>>>
>>>   - Use unsigned access for SKF_AD_HATYPE
>>>
>>>   - Added three more patches for other problems found.
>>>
>>>
>>> Testing the BPF JIT on Cavium OCTEON (mips64) with the test-bpf module
>>> identified some failures and unimplemented features.
>>>
>>> With this patch set we get:
>>>
>>>      test_bpf: Summary: 305 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [85/297 JIT'ed]
>>>
>>> Both big and little endian tested.
>>>
>>> We still lack eBPF support, but this is better than nothing.
>>
>> What tree are you targetting with these changes?  Do you expect
>> them to go via the MIPS or the net-next tree?
>>
>> Please be explicit about this in the future.
>>
> 
> Sorry I didn't mention it.
> 
> My expectation is that Ralf would merge it via the MIPS tree, as it is
> fully contained within arch/mips/*

Great, thanks for letting me know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1601492

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:34:02PM -0700, David Daney wrote:

> > What tree are you targetting with these changes?  Do you expect
> > them to go via the MIPS or the net-next tree?
> > 
> > Please be explicit about this in the future.
> > 
> 
> Sorry I didn't mention it.
> 
> My expectation is that Ralf would merge it via the MIPS tree, as it is fully
> contained within arch/mips/*

Thanks, applied.

  Ralf

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web