lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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 <kaffeemonster@googlemail.com>
    >>>>
    >>>> 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.
    >

    Greetings
    Jan

    --
    A UDP packet walks into a


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-30 06:01    [W:0.031 / U:123.368 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site