On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 10:16:38AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 4/15/26 00:20, Gregory Price wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 11:57:40AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > >>> > >>> I very strongly object to making this a prerequisite to merging. This > >>> is an untested idea that will certainly delay us by at least a couple > >>> of merge windows when products are shipping now, and the existing approach > >>> has been in circulation for a long time. It is TOO LATE!!!!!! > >> > > ... > >> > >> That said, you're clearly pissed at the goalposts changing yet again, > >> and that's really not fair that we collectively keep moving them. > >> > > > > This seems a bit more than moving a goalpost. > > > > We're now gating working software, for real working hardware, on a novel, > > unproven BPF ops structure that controls page table mappings on page table > > faults which would be used by exactly 1 user : FAMFS. > > Are MM people on board with even letting BPF do that? Honest question, > if someone has a pointer to how that should work, that would be appreciated. >
This was my first reaction when I realized the BPF program would be controlling iomap return value in the fault path. Big ol' (!) popped up over my head. ~Gregory
