From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D54B2517B9; Tue, 27 May 2025 09:13:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.198 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748337208; cv=none; b=hb/p28DMJMAlLA37fjD9RNAVKptRGp7IQBOM8xozFBKX1S36065McwvSThlt/Vtmb/n6/tjW2egspVtxJPCL0Hrf22F3ZIMzY76S3u97RtcngMBRdkAaDpbKBcLQqT6BW0ccLacqwq3M37QgREPzB41uR5yyGNmM39UrWiNKSmk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748337208; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zAuOrHemnpeLyMupl1/xQld0ci1rYZ5ezTxSN+CP3lU=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:To:Cc:Subject:From: References:In-Reply-To; b=TQgLeFllz6dSDLCa1l0pRfSvVMsg2R1ps4Kjf3B3y/HotJaQQxLJ/WqocNJvHyLeSlcNu5/QoX8X98uzOyWDPrCtLA0DPkEpoiDTwGzZytwwCZte9rCrnwzzB3/GQmESDdOxBcWhJWVC0lw/yVQAdDhJ8KAY7arJsWCZw6e0yEg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b=Xb2vwIHV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.183.198 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b="Xb2vwIHV" Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72BCA43289; Tue, 27 May 2025 09:13:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1748337203; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Pg9vGp1YHkXIBdUOEtw6pvaguTK4l9KgzQWa/jWZ448=; b=Xb2vwIHVkxdOdtkzTqahMB8Ob0dPQkUA3ReoZGJM1L+qUX1Vj82fd4mZq3PzhNP32O1Jkx rxSGUArUiUNECAYK3qxLtiRJm5PaVkldh1ripu3EGGANBnyTGQYq5Z+wUniIQZpG3OSQyk fxy6iFkZ1zsno/GpVwOBAXOScSRK5Mgsp+pYsnop4MUJoH89/jvP3BX3j5OL2l62j7QPHZ TRfxyJo+oz1CBl0pusuylCCBt1fFB0hODm+XfsGwexCOGnNlrkkNuQndIhVhgWYEdQAkkB hu1CaDW+KPMGWdK7cB6wT/wJ4KKgUCIsA72wVLDaMj7d8mqzcV15qqamYMzVfw== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 11:13:21 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Xu Kuohai" , "Alexei Starovoitov" , "Daniel Borkmann" , "John Fastabend" , "Andrii Nakryiko" , "Martin KaFai Lau" , "Eduard Zingerman" , "Song Liu" , "Yonghong Song" , "KP Singh" , "Stanislav Fomichev" , "Hao Luo" , "Jiri Olsa" , "Puranjay Mohan" , "Catalin Marinas" , "Will Deacon" , "Mykola Lysenko" , "Shuah Khan" , "Maxime Coquelin" , "Alexandre Torgue" , "Florent Revest" Cc: "Bastien Curutchet" , , "Thomas Petazzoni" , , , , , , "Xu Kuohai" Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf, arm64: Support up to 12 function arguments From: =?utf-8?q?Alexis_Lothor=C3=A9?= X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1-0-g2ecb8770224a References: <20250522-many_args_arm64-v2-0-d6afdb9cf819@bootlin.com> <20250522-many_args_arm64-v2-1-d6afdb9cf819@bootlin.com> <8d184497-fecf-497f-8b4c-bcd4b0a697ce@huaweicloud.com> <5535f49f-8903-4055-b99a-cf8b2d4666e1@huaweicloud.com> In-Reply-To: <5535f49f-8903-4055-b99a-cf8b2d4666e1@huaweicloud.com> X-GND-State: clean X-GND-Score: -100 X-GND-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddtgdduleelleculddtuddrgeefvddrtddtmdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfitefpfffkpdcuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepggfgtgffkffvvefuhffofhgjsehtqhertdertdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhgvgihishcunfhothhhohhrrocuoegrlhgvgihishdrlhhothhhohhrvgessghoohhtlhhinhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkefgfffhhefhfeegkefhffduhfehkeevffeluefhlefgfeeuveehvdekudfhheevnecuffhomhgrihhnpegsohhothhlihhnrdgtohhmnecukfhppedvrgdtvdemkeegvdekmehfleegtgemvgdttdemmeguieehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepvdgrtddvmeekgedvkeemfhelgegtmegvtddtmeemugeihedphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlvgigihhsrdhlohhthhhorhgvsegsohhothhlihhnrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeeftddprhgtphhtthhopeiguhhkuhhohhgriheshhhurgifvghitghlohhuugdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegrshhtsehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopegurghnihgvlhesihhoghgvrghrsghogidrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehjohhhnhdrf hgrshhtrggsvghnugesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegrnhgurhhiiheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgrrhhtihhnrdhlrghusehlihhnuhigrdguvghvpdhrtghpthhtohepvgguugihiiekjeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehsohhngheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-GND-Sasl: alexis.lothore@bootlin.com On Tue May 27, 2025 at 11:09 AM CEST, Xu Kuohai wrote: > On 5/27/2025 4:45 PM, Alexis Lothor=C3=A9 wrote: > > [...] > >>>> + /* We can not know for sure about exact alignment needs for >>>> + * struct passed on stack, so deny those >>>> + */ >>>> + if (m->arg_flags[i] & BTF_FMODEL_STRUCT_ARG) >>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>> leave the error code as is, namely, return -ENOTSUPP? >> Actually this change follows a complaint from checkpatch: >>=20 >> "WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP" > > Seems we can just ignore this warning, as ENOTSUPP is already used > throughout bpf, and the actual value -524 is well recognized. Ok, then I'll switch it back to ENOTSUPP --=20 Alexis Lothor=C3=A9, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com