Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Fix and optimize BPF tailcall for LoongArch

[Tiezhu Yang]

On 2026/7/9 下午4:58, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 7/7/26 12:15 PM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > Based on 7.2-rc2, tested on a Loongson-3A6000 physical machine.
> >
> > Here are the test results:
> >
> >    $ sudo modprobe test_bpf test_suite=test_tail_calls
> >    $ dmesg -t | tail -1
> >    test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 
> > JIT'ed]
> >
> >    $ sudo ./test_progs -t tailcalls | tail -1
> >    Summary: 1/37 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> >
> > v2 -> v3:
> >    -- Patch 1: Add Fixes tag.
> >    -- Patch 2: Update the commit message and add Fixes tag.
> >    -- Patch 3: Update the commit message and add Fixes tag.
> >    -- Patch 4: Condense the code comments and update the commit message.
> >
> > No code changes.
>
> Tiezhu/Huacai, do you want us to route these via bpf-next tree?

Hi Daniel,

Yes, routing via bpf-next looks better to me
because it is updated much more frequently,
allowing developers to rebase quickly.

However, Huacai usually takes LoongArch BPF
JIT patches into the loongarch-next tree.
Let's hear his thoughts on this.

Thanks,
Tiezhu