Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 bpf-next 00/17] bpf: eliminate zero extensions for sub-register writes

From: Jiong Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 10:09:13 +0100

Alexei Starovoitov writes:

> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:25:11PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>> v9:
>>   - Split patch 5 in v8.
>>     make bpf uapi header file sync a separate patch. (Alexei)
>
> 9th time's a charm? ;)

Yup :), it's all good things and helped us reaching a solution that fits
verifier's existing infra.

> Applied.
> Thanks a lot for all the hard work.
> It's a great milestone.

Thanks. And I guess the answer to the question:

  "Q: BPF 32-bit subregister requirements"

inside Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst now could be updated to
mention LLVM and JIT back-ends 32-bit supports, will send out an update on
this.

> Please follow up with an optimization for bpf_patch_insn_data()
> to make it scaleable and undo that workaround in scale tests.

Sure, will do.

Regards,
Jiong