Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net tree

From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>,
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net tree
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 23:17:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9f6f6d23-269b-bdff-89ad-7e31223a47e9@iogearbox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240429115643.7df77e08@kernel.org>

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