[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170616.121434.859810061597099237.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:14:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: daniel@...earbox.net
Cc: david.daney@...ium.com, ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
ralf@...ux-mips.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] samples/bpf: Add define __EMITTING_BPF__ when
building BPF
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:24:06 +0200
> On 06/16/2017 12:35 AM, David Daney wrote:
>> ... this allows gating of inline assembly code that causes llvm to
>> fail when emitting BPF.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
>
> I don't have a better idea at the moment, perhaps there could be
> a clang rewrite plugin that would ignore all inline assembly code
> since this is never used from BPF progs. Hmm. Really ugly that
> we have to add this __EMITTING_BPF__ into arch asm files, but I
> don't have a better idea for an immediate workaround right now ...
> I would really prefer if we could avoid just for the sake of the
> kernel samples going down the road of adding a
> !defined(__EMITTING_BPF__)
> into a uapi asm header for mips, though. Is this coming from
> networking sample code or rather tracing?
The problem is that we include the arch include/asm files at all.
When we build bpf stuff, we should have a set of asm/ files
specifically for builds targetting BPF.
Let's just fix this right and stop putting all of these hacks in.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists