Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] samples/bpf: Enable powerpc support | From | Alexei Starovoitov <> | Date | Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:52:52 -0700 |
| |
On 3/31/16 4:25 AM, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > Add the necessary definitions for building bpf samples on ppc. > > Since ppc doesn't store function return address on the stack, modify how > PT_REGS_RET() and PT_REGS_FP() work. > > Also, introduce PT_REGS_IP() to access the instruction pointer. I have > fixed this to work with x86_64 and arm64, but not s390. > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com> > Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com> > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- ... > + > +#ifdef __powerpc__ > +#define BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx) { (ip) = (ctx)->link; } > +#define BPF_KRETPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx) BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx) > +#else > +#define BPF_KPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx) \ > + bpf_probe_read(&(ip), sizeof(ip), (void *)PT_REGS_RET(ctx)) > +#define BPF_KRETPROBE_READ_RET_IP(ip, ctx) \ > + bpf_probe_read(&(ip), sizeof(ip), \ > + (void *)(PT_REGS_FP(ctx) + sizeof(ip)))
makes sense, but please use ({ }) gcc extension instead of {} and open call to make sure that macro body is scoped.
| |