From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753505Ab2D3EoK (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:44:10 -0400 Received: from uhura.skim.hs-owl.de ([193.174.118.81]:55879 "EHLO uhura.skim.hs-owl.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750772Ab2D3EoI (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:44:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4F9E188E.80503@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:43:58 +0200 From: Jan Seiffert Reply-To: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt CC: David Miller , , , , , Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH V4 3/3] bpf jit: Let the powerpc jit handle negative offsets References: <4F75CA89.4010709@googlemail.com> <4F75D2A5.7060407@googlemail.com> <20120403.180302.342779808900865443.davem@davemloft.net> <1333491102.3040.12.camel@pasglop> <1335753820.20866.27.camel@pasglop> <1335759088.20866.32.camel@pasglop> <4F9E1496.9060603@googlemail.com> <1335760199.20866.33.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1335760199.20866.33.camel@pasglop> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Skim-SendBy: exchange.hs-owl.de on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:44:04 +0200 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 193.174.118.178 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: kaffeemonster@googlemail.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb: > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 06:27 +0200, Jan Seiffert wrote: >> Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb: >>> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:43 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >>> >>>>> Matt's having a look at powerpc >>>> >>>> Ok, he hasn't so I'll dig a bit. >>>> >>>> No obvious wrongness (but I'm not very familiar with bpf), though I do >>>> have a comment: sk_negative_common() and bpf_slow_path_common() should >>>> be made one and single macro which takes the fallback function as an >>>> argument. >>> >>> Ok, with the compile fix below it seems to work for me: >>> >>> (Feel free to fold that into the original patch) >>> >> >> Should i resend the complete patch with the compile fix? > > Won't hurt... > Ok > BTW. Any idea about that bpf_program vs. sock_fprog issue I mentioned > earlier ? > No idea, i was going by the old saying: "Thou shall not include kernel header, or you will feel the wrath of angry kernel gurus." > Cheers, > Ben. > Greetings Jan -- The OO-Hype keeps on spinning, C stays.