From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zlim.lnx@gmail.com (Z Lim) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:55:36 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 00/14] arm64: eBPF JIT compiler In-Reply-To: <20140723103219.GA1366@localhost> References: <1405708100-13604-1-git-send-email-zlim.lnx@gmail.com> <20140721091623.GA16122@arm.com> <20140723103219.GA1366@localhost> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 04:49:29PM +0100, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:28:06PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote: [...] >> >> This series applies against net-next and is tested working >> >> with lib/test_bpf on ARMv8 Foundation Model. >> > >> > Looks like it works on my Juno board too, so: >> > >> > Acked-by: Will Deacon >> > >> > for the series. >> > >> > It's a bit late for 3.17 now, so I guess we'll queue this for 3.18 (which >> > also means the dependency on -next isn't an issue). Perhaps you could repost >> > around -rc3? >> >> Thanks for testing! Nice to see it working on real hw. >> I'm not sure why you're proposing a 4+ week delay. The patches >> will rot instead of getting used and tested. Imo it makes sense to >> get them into net-next now for 3.17. >> JIT is disabled by sysctl by default anyway. > > We normally like some patches (especially new functionality) to sit in > linux-next for a while before the mering window (ideally starting with > -rc4 or -rc5). We are at -rc6 already, so getting close to the 3.17 > merging window. > > Another aspect is that the arm64/bpf branch depends on the net tree, so > it can't easily go in via the arm64 tree for 3.17 (3.18 would not be a > problem). Hi Catalin, I take it you prefer this series going through arm64 tree, targeting 3.18, is that right? I understand your preference to have it sitting in linux-next for a longer period for arm64 material, I'll repost this again after 3.17 so it gets more exposure in linux-next. BTW, are you open to this series going through net tree? I'm (preemptively) asking because during development of this series, I've had to rebase a couple times against net-next to handle dependencies. Or is the general practice to handle conflicts in linux-next itself? > > -- > Catalin