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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans