[PATCH bpf-next v6 00/11] Atomics for eBPF · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 01/11] bpf: x86: Factor out emission of ModR/M for *(reg + off) · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 02/11] bpf: x86: Factor out emission of REX byte · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 03/11] bpf: x86: Factor out a lookup table for some ALU opcodes · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 06/11] bpf: Add BPF_FETCH field / create atomic_fetch_add instruction · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 07/11] bpf: Add instructions for atomic_[cmp]xchg · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 08/11] bpf: Pull out a macro for interpreting atomic ALU operations · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 11/11] bpf: Document new atomic instructions · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 05/11] bpf: Move BPF_STX reserved field check into BPF_STX verifier code · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 10/11] bpf: Add tests for new BPF atomic operations · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 09/11] bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
[PATCH bpf-next v6 04/11] bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other atomics in .imm · Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> · 2021-01-12
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 04/11] bpf: Rename BPF_XADD and prepare to encode other atomics in .imm · kernel test robot <hidden> · 2021-01-13
Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/11] Atomics for eBPF · Alexei Starovoitov <hidden> · 2021-01-14
RE: [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/11] Atomics for eBPF · John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> · 2021-01-14

RE: [PATCH bpf-next v6 00/11] Atomics for eBPF

From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Date: 2021-01-14 08:10:33
Also in: lkml

Brendan Jackman wrote:

Happy new year everyone, and thanks once again for the reviews.

There's still one unresolved review comment from John[3] but I don't
think it needs to block the patchset as it stands, it can be a
separate patch. Hope that's OK.

Its ok on my side if it comes as a follow up. I think it limits the
use cases without it, but no reason to hold up the series IMO.

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help