Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:43:58 +0200 | From | Jan Seiffert <> | Subject | Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH V4 3/3] bpf jit: Let the powerpc jit handle negative offsets |
| |
Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb: > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 06:27 +0200, Jan Seiffert wrote: >> Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb: >>> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:43 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >>> >>>>> Matt's having a look at powerpc >>>> >>>> Ok, he hasn't so I'll dig a bit. >>>> >>>> No obvious wrongness (but I'm not very familiar with bpf), 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. >>> >>> Ok, with the compile fix below it seems to work for me: >>> >>> (Feel free to fold that into the original patch) >>> >> >> Should i resend the complete patch with the compile fix? > > Won't hurt... >
Ok
> BTW. Any idea about that bpf_program vs. sock_fprog issue I mentioned > earlier ? >
No idea, i was going by the old saying: "Thou shall not include kernel header, or you will feel the wrath of angry kernel gurus."
> Cheers, > Ben. >
Greetings Jan
-- The OO-Hype keeps on spinning, C stays.
| |