All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: dthaler1968@googlemail.com
To: "'Aoyang Fang \(SSE, 222010547\)'" <aoyangfang@link.cuhk.edu.cn>,
	<bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@ietf.org>
Cc: <void@manifault.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] update the consistency issue in documentation
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:12:09 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <015701da3f41$eaab4d10$c001e730$@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3A7D0A57-02EF-4ACB-A599-1029CFCA7E74@link.cuhk.edu.cn>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aoyang Fang (SSE, 222010547) <aoyangfang@link.cuhk.edu.cn>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 7:13 PM
> To: bpf@vger.kernel.org; bpf@ietf.org
> Cc: void@manifault.com
> Subject: [PATCH] update the consistency issue in documentation
> 
> From fa9f3f47ddeb3e9a615c17aea57d2ecd53a7d201 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> 2001
> From: lincyawer <53161583+Lincyaw@users.noreply.github.com>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:51:36 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] The original documentation of BPF_JMP instructions is
> somehow misleading. The code part of instruction, e.g., BPF_JEQ's value is
> noted as 0x1, however, in `include/uapi/linux/bpf.h`, the value of BPF_JEQ
is
> 0x10. At the same time, the description convention is inconsistent with
the
> BPF_ALU, whose code are also 4bit, but the value of BPF_ADD is 0x00

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bpf-isa-00.html#section-3 says:
> ==============  ======  =================
> 4 bits (MSB)    1 bit   3 bits (LSB)
> ==============  ======  =================
> code            source  instruction class
> ==============  ======  =================

Hence the code field is 4 bits, and 0x10 cannot fit in a 4 bit field.
The documentation is already internally consistent, and this proposed
change would make the documentation incorrect.

Dave


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org
To: "'Aoyang Fang \(SSE, 222010547\)'" <aoyangfang@link.cuhk.edu.cn>,
	<bpf@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@ietf.org>
Cc: <void@manifault.com>
Subject: Re: [Bpf] [PATCH] update the consistency issue in documentation
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:12:09 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <015701da3f41$eaab4d10$c001e730$@gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20240104191209.m8Oxd16wAN7CNKg2p7VXUc59X-ktEfR5hyZjnqP2EEM@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3A7D0A57-02EF-4ACB-A599-1029CFCA7E74@link.cuhk.edu.cn>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aoyang Fang (SSE, 222010547) <aoyangfang@link.cuhk.edu.cn>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 7:13 PM
> To: bpf@vger.kernel.org; bpf@ietf.org
> Cc: void@manifault.com
> Subject: [PATCH] update the consistency issue in documentation
> 
> From fa9f3f47ddeb3e9a615c17aea57d2ecd53a7d201 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> 2001
> From: lincyawer <53161583+Lincyaw@users.noreply.github.com>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:51:36 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] The original documentation of BPF_JMP instructions is
> somehow misleading. The code part of instruction, e.g., BPF_JEQ's value is
> noted as 0x1, however, in `include/uapi/linux/bpf.h`, the value of BPF_JEQ
is
> 0x10. At the same time, the description convention is inconsistent with
the
> BPF_ALU, whose code are also 4bit, but the value of BPF_ADD is 0x00

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bpf-isa-00.html#section-3 says:
> ==============  ======  =================
> 4 bits (MSB)    1 bit   3 bits (LSB)
> ==============  ======  =================
> code            source  instruction class
> ==============  ======  =================

Hence the code field is 4 bits, and 0x10 cannot fit in a 4 bit field.
The documentation is already internally consistent, and this proposed
change would make the documentation incorrect.

Dave

-- 
Bpf mailing list
Bpf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf

  reply	other threads:[~2024-01-04 19:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-04  3:12 [PATCH] update the consistency issue in documentation Aoyang Fang (SSE, 222010547)
2024-01-04  3:12 ` [Bpf] " Aoyang Fang (SSE, 222010547)
2024-01-04 19:12 ` dthaler1968 [this message]
2024-01-04 19:12   ` dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
     [not found]   ` <20654405-C500-4A24-B09E-A28B25DF32AC@link.cuhk.edu.cn>
2024-01-05  1:31     ` dthaler1968
2024-01-05  1:31       ` [Bpf] " dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
     [not found] <F349E672-63EB-4DA3-84F8-45E360E02594@link.cuhk.edu.cn>
2024-01-04  3:39 ` David Vernet

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='015701da3f41$eaab4d10$c001e730$@gmail.com' \
    --to=dthaler1968@googlemail.com \
    --cc=aoyangfang@link.cuhk.edu.cn \
    --cc=bpf@ietf.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=void@manifault.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.