lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 07/29] x86: bpf_jit, use ENTRY+ENDPROC

* Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:

> On 04/24/2017, 05:55 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/24/2017, 05:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
> >>> If you align the entry points, then the code sequence as a whole is
> >>> are no longer densely packed.
> >>
> >> Sure.
> >>
> >>> Or do I misunderstand how your macros work?
> >>
> >> Perhaps. So the suggested macros for the code are:
> >> #define BPF_FUNC_START_LOCAL(name) \
> >> SYM_START(name, SYM_V_LOCAL, SYM_A_NONE)
> >> #define BPF_FUNC_START(name) \
> >> SYM_START(name, SYM_V_GLOBAL, SYM_A_NONE)
> >>
> >> and they differ from the standard ones:
> >> #define SYM_FUNC_START_LOCAL(name) \
> >> SYM_START(name, SYM_V_LOCAL, SYM_A_ALIGN)
> >> #define SYM_FUNC_START(name) \
> >> SYM_START(name, SYM_V_GLOBAL, SYM_A_ALIGN)
> >>
> >>
> >> The difference is SYM_A_NONE vs. SYM_A_ALIGN, which means:
> >> #define SYM_A_ALIGN ALIGN
> >> #define SYM_A_NONE /* nothing */
> >>
> >> Does it look OK now?
> >
> > No, the patch changes alignment which is undesirable, it needs to preserve the
> > existing (non-)alignment of the symbols!
>
> OK, so I am not expressing myself explicitly enough, it seems.
>
> So, correct, the patch v3 adds alignments. I suggested in the discussion
> the macros above. They do not add alignments. If everybody is OK with
> that, v4 of the patch won't add alignments. OK?

Yes.

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-24 18:42    [W:0.417 / U:0.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site