Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 15:48:51 +0100
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     olsajiri@gmail.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, bjorn@kernel.org, toke@redhat.com,
        David.Laight@aculab.com, rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] bpf: Yet another approach to fix the BPF dispatcher
 thing
Message-ID: <Y2PU01h0hy+6dI0J@krava>
References: <20221103120012.717020618@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221103120012.717020618@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 01:00:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Even thought the __attribute__((patchable_function_entry())) solution to the
> BPF dispatcher woes works, it turns out to not be supported by the whole range
> of ageing compilers we support. Specifically this attribute seems to be GCC-8
> and later.
> 
> This is another approach -- using static_call() to rewrite the dispatcher
> function. I've compile tested this on:
> 
>   x86_64  (inline static-call support)
>   i386    (out-of-line static-call support)
>   aargh64 (no static-call support)
> 
> A previous version was tested and found working by Bjorn.
> 
> It is split in two patches; first reverting the current approach and then
> introducing the new for ease of review.
> 

Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>

thanks,
jirka