[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJNEcWgjH_HOwg=RSfLsbtD7NPtabVms=GoXwfNueb_+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:35:49 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 01/13] bpf: x86: Factor out emission of ModR/M
for *(reg + off)
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:52 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 09:50:00PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:14 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 05:15:52PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 05:57:26PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > > > > +/* Emit the ModR/M byte for addressing *(r1 + off) and r2 */
> > > > > +static void emit_modrm_dstoff(u8 **pprog, u32 r1, u32 r2, int off)
> > > >
> > > > same concern as in the another patch. If you could avoid intel's puzzling names
> > > > like above it will make reviewing the patch easier.
> > >
> > > In this case there is actually a call like
> > >
> > > emit_modrm_dstoff(&prog, src_reg, dst_reg)
> >
> > emit_insn_prefix() ?
>
> Ah sorry, I thought you were talking about the _arg_ names.
I meant both. Arg names and helper name. Sorry for the confusion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists