BPF List
 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox