From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-176.mta1.migadu.com (out-176.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.176]) (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 3E2E84DA11 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 21:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.176 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707774575; cv=none; b=hNEHUW1KvXq4mfSfTsQ/Dr6jzrYlRT9xY/EcacoGUz/yE/rA48HrIJB0OPWCHIwXT+r/MvJEi1AS6L5CMVERnaW6KSgiu0HUHdBnSOQ9bnpvc7Z4CpcmrBlNFPjmWqSIz6A1vN8kSymUIi/FDJOdx5ZdppSpGvZK+2IVH5nAjbc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707774575; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XlzUixEuXYz9mCgAq/PNYC1k2GN0rRx2q5KJh2JDiig=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Znmrtw4OijcfiZ7+hl2POZERDFRRxE22zs9Up/xNTU8UEcfTtI+m9Z/NgPytMtOOOi3GOzwseeEvsPi51vSUDkzy2K8FvCrNcER31FmEymD7slO9r0Awxd0J2UujLvIdIv8g0v8m8T6ffTEMH482m4ekGdjIs/fkVBmNGkbUuWc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=Sm5sQijd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.176 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="Sm5sQijd" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1707774570; 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=3ap1xWTc/JyGMV9BZNY9zs9iX8inBtlXuNSX6jI2pAQ=; b=Sm5sQijdO2ME4NFMpW68reuZ7zVqLA9jHeVuGgDpTmvDTwSDiQ4xC3MJA8hHg2R5o5hP78 eoN9Vbek4+buXyqXuGWeInz/qxgDeBaQjDMJL3qAVbEGOMNZRw1Az+xBnFhgCD0GeYMyYY gvyjwZAhopN2v4Qy6TuTklRDf2sHG/Y= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:49:23 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Add callx instructions in new conformance group Content-Language: en-GB To: "Jose E. Marchesi" , Dave Thaler Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, bpf@ietf.org, Dave Thaler References: <20240212211310.8282-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com> <87le7ptlsq.fsf@oracle.com> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Yonghong Song In-Reply-To: <87le7ptlsq.fsf@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT 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! From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [50.223.129.194]) (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 B4D674D9FA for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 21:49:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=50.223.129.194 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707774581; cv=none; b=bqEptvSc2D1yNTGR6Ol4KA+Px+jMRMSN8BRpx+noOZjuNNKUBgPmfNZ95w7lWuvzPoy3j2RE7C3yd99uT7NpAjcYeDNKgs/WVz7u4jqmLDncK7BRraA6Mt8ZvsZwmgYZj0ql1wQLFjrEX5Gt5gdyrcoG8/MjAOgycIT1VdIzZrc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707774581; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9PJixthd5124M79bglDN7cb3jYjL8GT1/8nk5m+zhS4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To: Subject:Content-Type; b=iaPmYwp1NxeoGZ6LCR4ByaC0g52CtODtLb+25AfjRhjbtozRFiaNA08Aq30Dj/x2aZTZtkf9vb3P2MrlNDLcxn0FgxC/a/rPYTkyw+wVENSm5VMYcDt8HSPhEGgA/YMtli1D4u2V6fmJXTHymEH7UImkL0kYM7N9KaDpA3ZvX0M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ietf.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b=Z+lm8bEs; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b=Z+lm8bEs; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=Sm5sQijd reason="signature verification failed"; arc=none smtp.client-ip=50.223.129.194 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ietf.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b="Z+lm8bEs"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org header.i=@ietf.org header.b="Z+lm8bEs"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="Sm5sQijd" Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E26C151996 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:49:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1707774579; bh=9PJixthd5124M79bglDN7cb3jYjL8GT1/8nk5m+zhS4=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=Z+lm8bEsZ22U8v4/DcwMHAgZKPzslmAKFWv6IrVwvs760Z37Ry/3KYTZey5Rw2N8J 2JAo+Ls3zEInAK2BGkBpuDt8VN5Wn4MiyfQVv9JbGQXoO2kAct+R5BUxssbrCf7vIl 33HmlGgOotsjKeRg9ICh9IBMraMaeBisy7kNRGqw= X-Mailbox-Line: From bpf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 12 13:49:39 2024 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CC8C151701; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:49:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1707774579; bh=9PJixthd5124M79bglDN7cb3jYjL8GT1/8nk5m+zhS4=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=Z+lm8bEsZ22U8v4/DcwMHAgZKPzslmAKFWv6IrVwvs760Z37Ry/3KYTZey5Rw2N8J 2JAo+Ls3zEInAK2BGkBpuDt8VN5Wn4MiyfQVv9JbGQXoO2kAct+R5BUxssbrCf7vIl 33HmlGgOotsjKeRg9ICh9IBMraMaeBisy7kNRGqw= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E812C1516EB for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:49:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.107 X-Spam-Level: Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p-8BO93a0asb for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:49:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from out-172.mta1.migadu.com (out-172.mta1.migadu.com [IPv6:2001:41d0:203:375::ac]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C58A0C151701 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:49:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1707774570; 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=3ap1xWTc/JyGMV9BZNY9zs9iX8inBtlXuNSX6jI2pAQ=; b=Sm5sQijdO2ME4NFMpW68reuZ7zVqLA9jHeVuGgDpTmvDTwSDiQ4xC3MJA8hHg2R5o5hP78 eoN9Vbek4+buXyqXuGWeInz/qxgDeBaQjDMJL3qAVbEGOMNZRw1Az+xBnFhgCD0GeYMyYY gvyjwZAhopN2v4Qy6TuTklRDf2sHG/Y= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:49:23 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: "Jose E. Marchesi" , Dave Thaler Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, bpf@ietf.org, Dave Thaler References: <20240212211310.8282-1-dthaler1968@gmail.com> <87le7ptlsq.fsf@oracle.com> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Yonghong Song In-Reply-To: <87le7ptlsq.fsf@oracle.com> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Bpf] [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf, docs: Add callx instructions in new conformance group X-BeenThere: bpf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: bpf-bounces@ietf.org Sender: "Bpf" Message-ID: <20240212214923.htfqlTXhuz_9NbCrXB9RsDY_YfRrZ3DEn1vdD0U2OZ8@z> 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