From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Seiffert Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH V4 3/3] bpf jit: Let the powerpc jit handle negative offsets Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:43:58 +0200 Message-ID: <4F9E188E.80503@googlemail.com> 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> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , , , , , To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Return-path: 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 In-Reply-To: <1335760199.20866.33.camel@pasglop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.