[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55CD10EE.7000300@plumgrid.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:49:34 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: pi3orama <pi3orama@....com>
Cc: He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com" <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"wangnan0@...wei.com" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 0/2] Make eBPF programs output data to perf
On 8/13/15 2:35 PM, pi3orama wrote:
> I was thinking about whether to add a "type" field there, so we will have an explicit
> mov const instruction before the call instruction, which can act as a mark. Also, if
> we generate the type code automatically, a type field in this API can make things
> easier since we don't need wrap the user structure in BPF stack. However, the
> LLVM side is not ready yet, so we haven't post the new version.
I think the helper was clean enough. Any type info probably needs to be
done as a side channel and not part of the helper anyway.
But, ok, let's figure out the type stuff first.
Also I don't think you can rely on extra insn in front of a call insn.
Compiler can freely insert other insns there. You don't want to
introduce data flow analysis in elf parser.
--
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