From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: "Jose E. Marchesi" <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>,
Dave Thaler <dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, bpf@ietf.org, Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Add callx instructions in new conformance group
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:49:23 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5072dfb-ab2b-40eb-891e-630a02c58fe8@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87le7ptlsq.fsf@oracle.com>
On 2/12/24 1:28 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>> +BPF_CALL 0x8 0x1 call PC += reg_val(imm) BPF_JMP | BPF_X only, see `Program-local functions`_
> If the instruction requires a register operand, why not using one of the
> register fields? Is there any reason for not doing that?
Talked to Alexei and we think using dst_reg for the register for callx
insn is better. I will craft a llvm patch for this today. Thanks!
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: "Jose E. Marchesi" <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>,
Dave Thaler <dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, bpf@ietf.org, Dave Thaler <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Add callx instructions in new conformance group
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:49:23 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5072dfb-ab2b-40eb-891e-630a02c58fe8@linux.dev> (raw)
Message-ID: <20240212214923.htfqlTXhuz_9NbCrXB9RsDY_YfRrZ3DEn1vdD0U2OZ8@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87le7ptlsq.fsf@oracle.com>
On 2/12/24 1:28 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>> +BPF_CALL 0x8 0x1 call PC += reg_val(imm) BPF_JMP | BPF_X only, see `Program-local functions`_
> If the instruction requires a register operand, why not using one of the
> register fields? Is there any reason for not doing that?
Talked to Alexei and we think using dst_reg for the register for callx
insn is better. I will craft a llvm patch for this today. Thanks!
--
Bpf mailing list
Bpf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-12 21:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-12 21:13 [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Add callx instructions in new conformance group Dave Thaler
2024-02-12 21:13 ` [Bpf] " Dave Thaler
2024-02-12 21:21 ` David Vernet
2024-02-12 21:21 ` David Vernet
2024-02-12 21:28 ` Jose E. Marchesi
2024-02-12 21:28 ` Jose E. Marchesi
2024-02-12 21:46 ` dthaler1968
2024-02-12 21:46 ` dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
2024-02-12 21:49 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2024-02-12 21:49 ` Yonghong Song
2024-02-12 21:52 ` dthaler1968
2024-02-12 21:52 ` dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
2024-02-12 22:48 ` Yonghong Song
2024-02-12 22:48 ` Yonghong Song
2024-02-13 1:18 ` dthaler1968
2024-02-13 1:18 ` dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
2024-02-13 1:23 ` Yonghong Song
2024-02-13 1:23 ` Yonghong Song
2024-02-13 6:11 ` Jose E. Marchesi
2024-02-13 6:11 ` Jose E. Marchesi
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=b5072dfb-ab2b-40eb-891e-630a02c58fe8@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=bpf@ietf.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org \
--cc=dthaler1968@gmail.com \
--cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox