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

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 7/9/26 11:25 AM, Huacai Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 5:15 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes, I indeed prefer to take these patches into the arch tree, which
> is similar to powerpc.
Ok, sgtm, then I'll toss them from our queue.

Thanks,
Daniel