[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87359szzw3.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:42:52 +0100
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
To: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2] riscv, bpf: Emit fixed-length instructions for
BPF_PSEUDO_FUNC
Pu Lehui <pulehui@...weicloud.com> writes:
>> Wouldn't that work?
>>
>
> It definitely works. But auipc+addi may be some holes, while
> lui+addi+slli support all the address of kernel and module. And this
> might be help for the future feature porting.
We're already using auipc/jalr for calls, and I'd say it *very* unlikely
that we'll hit the non-covered range. I'd say go with auipc/addi +
error, and we can change if this really is a problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists