Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Move thread_info into task_struct for LoongArch

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 8:31 PM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 11:16 AM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2026/6/15 上午10:23, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 9:41 AM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 2026/6/14 上午10:51, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > >>> Hi, Tiezhu,
> > >>>
> > >>> I have queued this series for 7.2, does the below series depend on this one?
> > >>>
> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/20260521125636.26744-1-yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
> > >>
> > >> This is independent on CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK.
> > >>
> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/20260428080051.20938-1-yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
> > >>
> > >> This is dependent on CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK.
> > >>
> > >> But anyway, I plan to send new version for the above two series of
> > >> selftests once this "Move thread_info into task_struct for LoongArch"
> > >> series is merged into the mainline, maybe after 7.2-rc1.
> > >>
> > >> Because the code under selftests need to be updated, for example,
> > >> it can use bpf_get_current_task_btf()->thread_info.preempt_count
> > >> for get_preempt_count(), and it should use ld.wu rather than ld.w
> > >> for bpf_get_smp_processor_id().
> > > You can update new versions now, then they can be merged together.
> >
> > Thanks for your suggestion.
> >
> > However, considering that these selftest patches need to be
> > routed through the BPF tree (rather than the LoongArch tree),
> > updating them right now during the active merge window might
> > be inappropriate and risky.
> >
> > Given that these selftests strictly depend on the "move
> > thread_info into task_struct" core changes, sending them to
> > the BPF list now could cause cross-tree dependency issues and
> > potential build breakages if the core series undergoes any late
> > adjustments before hitting mainline.
> >
> > Moreover, because these are selftest adaptations rather than
> > urgent bug fixes, they aren't high-priority for this immediate
> > window. I will rebase and submit the new version to the BPF tree
> > right after 7.2-rc1, once the LoongArch base infrastructure is
> > securely merged into the mainline.
> In history most arch-specific selftests are merged via arch trees,
> including perf, bpf, ftrace, kvm and so on.

This is not true at all.
All bpf selftests are going through bpf-next tree.
For example, x86 and arm64 bpf JIT changes always go
through bpf-next.
loongarch is causing problems this way by taking bpf JIT changes
into the loongarch tree.