[PATCH bpf-next v2 0/4] Add ftrace direct call for arm64

[Catalin Marinas]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 08:01:16PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 9/13/22 6:27 PM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> > This series adds ftrace direct call for arm64, which is required to attach
> > bpf trampoline to fentry.
> > 
> > Although there is no agreement on how to support ftrace direct call on arm64,
> > no patch has been posted except the one I posted in [1], so this series
> > continues the work of [1] with the addition of long jump support. Now ftrace
> > direct call works regardless of the distance between the callsite and custom
> > trampoline.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220518131638.3401509-2-xukuohai@huawei.com/
> > 
> > v2:
> > - Fix compile and runtime errors caused by ftrace_rec_arch_init
> > 
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220913063146.74750-1-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com/
> > 
> > Xu Kuohai (4):
> >    ftrace: Allow users to disable ftrace direct call
> >    arm64: ftrace: Support long jump for ftrace direct call
> >    arm64: ftrace: Add ftrace direct call support
> >    ftrace: Fix dead loop caused by direct call in ftrace selftest
> 
> Given there's just a tiny fraction touching BPF JIT and most are around core arm64,
> it probably makes sense that this series goes via Catalin/Will through arm64 tree
> instead of bpf-next if it looks good to them. Catalin/Will, thoughts (Ack + bpf-next
> could work too, but I'd presume this just results in merge conflicts)?

I think it makes sense for the series to go via the arm64 tree but I'd
like Mark to have a look at the ftrace changes first.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin