[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADasFoAqjZVnMFGZNgQMhXsBC78vbb-u1PPv_aZx3fMXeHBXKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:41:18 -0700
From: Luke Nelson <lukenels@...washington.edu>
To: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@...il.com>,
Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] RV32G eBPF JIT
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 5:18 AM Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
> #define BPF_ZEXT_REG(DST)
> ((struct bpf_insn) {
> .code = BPF_ALU | BPF_MOV | BPF_X
>
> So it can't be BPF_ALU64. It is safe to remove this chunk of code.
>
Thanks! I'll fix this in the next revision.
- Luke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists