[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [REGRESSION][PATCH V4 3/3] bpf jit: Let the powerpc jit handle negative offsets
    Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb:
    > On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 08:11 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
    >> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 18:03 -0400, David Miller wrote:
    >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Seiffert <>
    >>>> I have only compile tested this, -ENOHARDWARE. Can someone with
    >>>> more powerpc kung-fu review and maybe test this? Esp. powerpc
    >>>> asm is not my strong point. I think i botched the stack frame
    >>>> in the call setup. Help?
    >>> I'm not applying this until a powerpc person tests it.
    >>> Also, we have an ARM JIT in the tree which probably needs to be
    >>> fixed similarly.
    >> Matt's having a look at powerpc
    > Ok, he hasn't so I'll dig a bit.

    That would be great Benjamin!

    > No obvious wrongness (but I'm not very familiar with bpf),

    As long as you know PPC ASM you are my man ;-)

    > 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.

    I don't know if this is possible.
    The return value is different (one returns 0 on success, the other != 0,
    the return value of != is needed). I didn't wanted to change to much,
    because i'm not fluent in ppc.

    > I'll mess around & try to test using Jan test case & will come back
    > with an updated patch.

    Would be great!

    > Cheers, Ben.


    A UDP packet walks into a

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-30 06:01    [W:0.024 / U:69.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site