On 19/07/11 17:17, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 2:06 AM, Matt Evans wrote:
>
>> On 19/07/11 16:59, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 18, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Matt Evans wrote:
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> V2: Removed some cut/paste woe in setting SEEN_X even on writes.
>>>> Merci for le review, Eric!
>>>>
>>>> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 1 +
>>>> arch/powerpc/Makefile | 3 +-
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc-opcode.h | 40 ++
>>>> arch/powerpc/net/Makefile | 4 +
>>>> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.S | 138 +++++++
>>>
>>> can we rename to bpf_jit_64.S, since this doesn't work on PPC32.
>>>
>>>> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit.h | 227 +++++++++++
>>>> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 690
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> same here, or split between bpf_jit_comp.c (shared between ppc32 & ppc64)
>>> and
>>> bpf_jit_comp_64.c
>>
>> A reasonable suggestion -- bpf_jit_64.S certainly. I think it may not be
>> worth
>> splitting bpf_jit_comp.c until we support both tho? (I'm thinking
>> bpf_jit_comp_{32,64}.c would just house the stackframe generation code which
>> is
>> the main difference, plus compile-time switched macros for the odd LD vs
>> LWZ.)
>
> If its most 64-bit specific than just go with bpf_jit_comp_64.c for now. We
> can refactor later.
Nah, other way round -- it's almost all agnostic but with a couple of functions
that I was recommending moving out to a _64.c and _32.c later, leaving the bulk
still in bpf_jit_comp.c.
Matt
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
