All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cupertino Miranda <cupertino.miranda@oracle.com>
To: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	"Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	David Faust <david.faust@oracle.com>,
	Elena Zannoni <elena.zannoni@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] bpf/verifier: refactor checks for range computation
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 20:36:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wmonzxav.fsf@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <833fde942383aa4b306ee0ef75c1a5ebf212e02b.camel@gmail.com>


Eduard Zingerman writes:

> On Fri, 2024-04-19 at 10:37 +0100, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I was proud of the initial boolean implementation that was very clean
>> and simple, although like Yonghong said, not truly a refactor.
>> If everyone agrees that it is Ok, I will be happy to change it back.
>
> Hi Miranda,
>
> I've talked to Yonghong today, he is ok with removing distinction between
> __mark_reg_unknown and mark_reg_unknown, but he asks to first make a patch,
> that replaces the use of mark_reg_unknown() by __mark_reg_unknown().
> So that the follow-up refactoring patch would not change any behaviour.
> What do you think?
Sure, I will prepare it. I presure the patch should be the first in the
series.

Thanks,
Cupertino
>
> Best regards,
> Eduard

  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-23 19:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-17 12:23 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/5] bpf/verifier: range computation improvements Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-17 12:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/5] bpf/verifier: refactor checks for range computation Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-18 22:37   ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-19  9:37     ` Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-19 17:38       ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-23 19:28         ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-23 19:36           ` Cupertino Miranda [this message]
2024-04-23 19:37             ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-17 12:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/5] bpf/verifier: improve XOR and OR " Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-18 23:57   ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-17 12:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/5] selftests/bpf: XOR and OR range computation tests Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-19  1:24   ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-19  9:41     ` Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-23 20:33   ` Yonghong Song
2024-04-17 12:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/5] bpf/verifier: relax MUL range computation check Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-19  2:30   ` Eduard Zingerman
2024-04-19  9:47     ` Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-23 20:53       ` Yonghong Song
2024-04-24 14:59         ` Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-17 12:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: MUL range computation tests Cupertino Miranda
2024-04-19  2:32   ` Eduard Zingerman

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=87wmonzxav.fsf@oracle.com \
    --to=cupertino.miranda@oracle.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=david.faust@oracle.com \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=elena.zannoni@oracle.com \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /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.