On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:50:03PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 03/04/2018 02:08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > Combining subprog pass with do_check is going into opposite direction
> > of this long term work. Divide and conquer. Combining more things into
> > do_check is the opposite of this prog
On 05/04/18 16:50, Jiong Wang wrote:
> On 03/04/2018 02:08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> Combining subprog pass with do_check is going into opposite direction
>> of this long term work. Divide and conquer. Combining more things into
>> do_check is the opposite of this programming principle.
>
> Agr
On 03/04/2018 02:08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
Combining subprog pass with do_check is going into opposite direction
of this long term work. Divide and conquer. Combining more things into
do_check is the opposite of this programming principle.
Agree. And for the redundant insn traversal issue i
On 05/04/18 06:28, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:58:46AM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>> On 04/04/18 00:37, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> hmm. that doesn't fail for me and any other bots didn't complain.
>>> Are you sure you're running the latest kernel and tests?
>> Ah, test_
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:58:46AM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 04/04/18 00:37, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > hmm. that doesn't fail for me and any other bots didn't complain.
> > Are you sure you're running the latest kernel and tests?
> Ah, test_progs isn't actually rebuilding because __NR_bpf
On 04/04/18 00:37, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> hmm. that doesn't fail for me and any other bots didn't complain.
> Are you sure you're running the latest kernel and tests?
Ah, test_progs isn't actually rebuilding because __NR_bpf is undeclared;
something must be going wrong with header files.
Neve
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:39:11PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 03/04/18 02:08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > I like patch 3 and going to play with it.
> > How did you test it ?
> Just test_verifier and test_progs (the latter has a failure
> "test_bpf_obj_id:FAIL:get-prog-info(fd) err 0 errno 2
On 03/04/18 02:08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> I like patch 3 and going to play with it.
> How did you test it ?
Just test_verifier and test_progs (the latter has a failure
"test_bpf_obj_id:FAIL:get-prog-info(fd) err 0 errno 2 i 0 type 1(1) info_len
80(40) jit_enabled 0 jited_prog_len 0 xlated_pr
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:44:17PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> By storing subprog boundaries as a subprogno mark on each insn, rather than
> a start (and implicit end) for each subprog, we collect a number of gains:
> * More efficient determination of which subprog contains a given insn, and
> t
On 29/03/18 23:44, Edward Cree wrote:
> By storing subprog boundaries as a subprogno mark on each insn, rather than
> a start (and implicit end) for each subprog, we collect a number of gains:
> * More efficient determination of which subprog contains a given insn, and
> thus of find_subprog (wh
By storing subprog boundaries as a subprogno mark on each insn, rather than
a start (and implicit end) for each subprog, we collect a number of gains:
* More efficient determination of which subprog contains a given insn, and
thus of find_subprog (which subprog begins at a given insn).
* Number
11 matches
Mail list logo
