[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140826074655.GB19799@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:46:55 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Chema Gonzalez <chema@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 4/6] bpf: enable bpf syscall on x64 and i386
* Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
> > Per discussion at Kernel Summit. Every new syscall requires
> > a manual page and test programs. We have had too many new syscalls
> > that are DOA.
>
> There is verifier testsuite that is testing eBPF verifier from userspace
> via bpf syscall. Also there are multiple examples and libbpf.
> I think test coverage for bpf syscall is quite substantial already.
This is in tools/bpf/, right?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists