[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJe8K0UcDMnj964EKW8M+f=7K3ArgM5xdF9EcyRCFwd4dWY4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:34:33 +0300
From: Denis Kirjanov <kda@...ux-powerpc.org>
To: Andreas Ziegler <andreas.ziegler@....de>
Cc: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] eBPF JIT for PPC64
On 6/30/16, Andreas Ziegler <andreas.ziegler@....de> wrote:
> Hi Naveen,
>
> this patchset makes a change to arch/powerpc/net/Makefile in order to only
> compile the previously existing bpf_jit_comp.c if !CONFIG_PPC64, and use
> bpf_jit_comp64.c if CONFIG_PPC64 is enabled.
>
> Inside arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c, however, there is still an #ifdef
> CONFIG_PPC64 block at line 667 (linux-next of today, i.e., next-20160630):
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
> /* Function descriptor nastiness: Address + TOC */
> ((u64 *)image)[0] = (u64)code_base;
> ((u64 *)image)[1] = local_paca->kernel_toc;
> #endif
>
> From my understanding of the code, this #ifdef can now be removed, as there
> is
> no way the file could be compiled with CONFIG_PPC64 enabled. Is this
> correct?
That was used for running classic BPF on ppc64. With eBPF on ppc64 the
whole block can be removed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Powered by blists - more mailing lists