On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 9:20 AM Lecomte, Arnaud <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 03/09/2025 18:12, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:52 AM Arnaud Lecomte <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> A new helper function stack_map_calculate_max_depth() that > >> computes the max depth for a stackmap. > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> - Removed the checking 'map_size % map_elem_size' from > >> stack_map_calculate_max_depth > >> - Changed stack_map_calculate_max_depth params name to be more generic > >> > >> Changes in v3: > >> - Changed map size param to size in max depth helper > >> > >> Changes in v4: > >> - Fixed indentation in max depth helper for args > >> > >> Changes in v5: > >> - Bound back trace_nr to num_elem in __bpf_get_stack > >> - Make a copy of sysctl_perf_event_max_stack > >> in stack_map_calculate_max_depth > >> > >> Changes in v6: > >> - Restrained max_depth computation only when required > >> - Additional cleanup from Song in __bpf_get_stack > > This is not a refactor anymore. > > Pls don't squash different things into one patch. > > Keep refactor as patch 1, and another cleanup as patch 2. > > The main problem is that patch 2 is not a cleanup too. It is a bug fix > so it doesn't really > fit either. > We could maybe split this patch into 2 new patches but I don't really > like this idea. > If we decide to stick to 2 patches format, I don't have any preference > which patch's scope > should be extended. I wasn't proposing to squash cleanup into patch 2. Make 3 patches where each one is doing one thing.
