From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "bpf@ietf.org" <bpf@ietf.org>,
"bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bpf] Signed modulo operations
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:48:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQLg+p8uQ4JX16JAj8hMNji+OfManPymisO3c_o=ZseQdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH7PR21MB387814B98538D7D23A611E89A3C0A@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:03 PM Dave Thaler
<dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Perhaps text like the proposed snippet quoted in the exchange above should be
> added around the new text that now appears in the doc, i.e. the ambiguous text
> is currently:
> > For signed operations (``BPF_SDIV`` and ``BPF_SMOD``), for ``BPF_ALU``,
> > 'imm' is interpreted as a 32-bit signed value. For ``BPF_ALU64``, 'imm'
> > is first :term:`sign extended<Sign Extend>` from 32 to 64 bits, and then
> > interpreted as a 64-bit signed value.
That's what we have in the doc and it's a correct description.
Which part is ambiguous?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "bpf@ietf.org" <bpf@ietf.org>,
"bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bpf] Signed modulo operations
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:48:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQLg+p8uQ4JX16JAj8hMNji+OfManPymisO3c_o=ZseQdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20230930144806.ER80sssNvnYvj_VSbxQmwDXzpumSOdNNCc3CxS33Ex8@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH7PR21MB387814B98538D7D23A611E89A3C0A@PH7PR21MB3878.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:03 PM Dave Thaler
<dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Perhaps text like the proposed snippet quoted in the exchange above should be
> added around the new text that now appears in the doc, i.e. the ambiguous text
> is currently:
> > For signed operations (``BPF_SDIV`` and ``BPF_SMOD``), for ``BPF_ALU``,
> > 'imm' is interpreted as a 32-bit signed value. For ``BPF_ALU64``, 'imm'
> > is first :term:`sign extended<Sign Extend>` from 32 to 64 bits, and then
> > interpreted as a 64-bit signed value.
That's what we have in the doc and it's a correct description.
Which part is ambiguous?
--
Bpf mailing list
Bpf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-30 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-27 18:59 [PATCH 01/15] ebpf-docs: Move legacy packet instructions to a separate file dthaler1968
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 02/15] ebpf-docs: Linux byteswap note dthaler1968
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 03/15] ebpf-docs: Move Clang notes to a separate file dthaler1968
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 04/15] ebpf-docs: Add Clang note about BPF_ALU dthaler1968
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 05/15] ebpf-docs: Add TOC and fix formatting dthaler1968
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 06/15] ebpf-docs: Use standard type convention in standard doc dthaler1968
2022-09-30 20:49 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 07/15] ebpf-docs: Fix modulo zero, division by zero, overflow, and underflow dthaler1968
2022-09-30 20:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-30 21:54 ` Dave Thaler
2022-09-30 21:59 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-30 22:41 ` Dave Thaler
2022-09-30 23:41 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-04 16:36 ` Dave Thaler
2022-10-04 17:24 ` div_k. Was: " Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-04 18:23 ` Dave Thaler
2022-10-04 18:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-09-29 21:03 ` Signed modulo operations Dave Thaler
2023-09-29 21:03 ` [Bpf] " Dave Thaler
2023-09-30 6:07 ` Carsten Bormann
2023-09-30 6:07 ` Carsten Bormann
2023-09-30 14:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2023-09-30 14:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-10-02 13:19 ` Eduard Zingerman
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 08/15] ebpf-docs: Use consistent names for the same field dthaler1968
2022-09-30 20:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-04 14:44 ` Dave Thaler
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 09/15] ebpf-docs: Explain helper functions dthaler1968
2022-09-30 22:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-30 23:01 ` Dave Thaler
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 10/15] ebpf-docs: Add appendix of all opcodes in order dthaler1968
2022-09-30 22:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-30 22:43 ` Dave Thaler
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 11/15] ebpf-docs: Improve English readability dthaler1968
2022-09-30 22:16 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-04 14:32 ` Dave Thaler
2022-10-04 15:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-04 15:55 ` Dave Thaler
2022-10-04 15:56 ` Dave Thaler
2022-10-04 16:19 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-10-04 16:41 ` Dave Thaler
2022-10-04 16:54 ` Dave Thaler
2022-10-06 20:44 ` Jim Harris
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 12/15] ebpf-docs: Add Linux note about register calling convention dthaler1968
2022-09-30 22:17 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 13/15] ebpf-docs: Add extended 64-bit immediate instructions dthaler1968
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 14/15] ebpf-docs: Add extended call instructions dthaler1968
2022-09-27 18:59 ` [PATCH 15/15] ebpf-docs: Add note about invalid instruction dthaler1968
2022-09-30 22:21 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2022-09-30 20:50 ` [PATCH 01/15] ebpf-docs: Move legacy packet instructions to a separate file patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAADnVQLg+p8uQ4JX16JAj8hMNji+OfManPymisO3c_o=ZseQdA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@ietf.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.