From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FF9C31E4B for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:11:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A38420850 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:11:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726184AbfFNQLF (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:11:05 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49318 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725868AbfFNQLF (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:11:05 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAE55C057F30; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from treble (ovpn-121-232.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.121.232]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A6595DE00; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:11:01 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Peter Zijlstra , X86 ML , LKML , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Network Development , bpf , Song Liu , Kairui Song , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code Message-ID: <20190614161101.vobuleyjap777ol5@treble> References: <99c22bbd79e72855f4bc9049981602d537a54e70.1560431531.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com> <20190613205710.et5fywop4gfalsa6@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20190614012030.b6eujm7b4psu62kj@treble> <20190614070852.GQ3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190614073536.d3xkhwhq3fuivwt5@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20190614081116.GU3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 08:13:49AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:11 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:35:38AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 09:08:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:20:30PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:57:11PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > and to patches 8 and 9. > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's your code, but ... can I ask why? AT&T syntax is the > > > > > standard for Linux, which is in fact the OS we are developing for. > > > > > > > > I agree, all assembly in Linux is AT&T, adding Intel notation only > > > > serves to cause confusion. > > > > > > It's not assembly. It's C code that generates binary and here > > > we're talking about comments. > > > > And comments are useless if they don't clarify. Intel syntax confuses. > > > > > I'm sure you're not proposing to do: > > > /* mov src, dst */ > > > #define EMIT_mov(DST, SRC) \ > > > right? > > > > Which is why Josh reversed both of them. The current Intel order is just > > terribly confusing. And I don't see any of the other JITs having > > confusing comments like this. > > > > > bpf_jit_comp.c stays as-is. Enough of it. > > > > I think you're forgetting this is also arch/x86 code, and no, it needs > > changes because its broken wrt unwinding. > > See MAINTAINERS file. > If you guys keep insisting on pointless churn like this > we'll move arch/x86/net/ into net/ where it probably belongs. > netdev has its own comment style too. > And it is also probably confusing to some folks. So if I understand correctly, you're proposing that we move x86-specific code to net/arch/x86 so you don't have to make your code readable to others and adhere to kernel style guidelines? -- Josh