From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 09:07:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH RFC] arm64: eBPF JIT compiler
In-Reply-To: <CABg9mcuCQHXacgq-C7A=G5GH_p7b0TxCYB8A9qXvGJSoSbjs5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1404278424-31176-1-git-send-email-zlim.lnx@gmail.com>
 <20140703091450.GB12958@arm.com>
 <CABg9mcuCQHXacgq-C7A=G5GH_p7b0TxCYB8A9qXvGJSoSbjs5A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140704080751.GA23379@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 07:56:54AM +0100, Z Lim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > Does this sound remotely feasible?
> 
> So I looked at insn.c and the only overlap at this point is B/BL codegen.
> A whole lot more, e.g. arithmetic, logical, and memory ops, will need
> to be shuffled in.

Yup, the more the merrier. I just want to avoid having N subtley different
encoders/decoders, as this stuff tends to be hard to review and easy to make
small mistakes.

> Let me address Alexei's review comments and send out a v2.
> After that, I can take a stab at consolidating bpf_jit.h into
> insn.{c,h}. Sounds good to you?

Perfect.

Will