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

[Huacai Chen]

Hi, Tiezhu and Daniel,

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.

Huacai
>
> Thanks,
> Tiezhu
>