From: tongtiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com> To: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: fix some compiler error Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 15:26:48 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <f3ed7e48-c565-9147-eca0-6298a36b3d61@huawei.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAJ+HfNj_p36trWFzdyxVVgykrPVq=OvKcYq61w2QyKsHwa0gDw@mail.gmail.com> On 2021/11/3 14:10, Björn Töpel wrote: > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 at 04:06, tongtiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com> wrote: >> > [...] >>> >> Hi Björn: >> From the perspective of development, introduce asm/extable.h is also prepare for the >> subsequent modification of exception_table_entry, such as: >> 1. https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/10/20/591 >> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211019160219.5202-11-mark.rutland@arm.com/ >> >> Therefore, the prototype declarations and definitions related to kernel config are placed in head file, >> which can avoid compiler error and simplify the rendering of functions. >> > > Sure, but *this* patch is about getting the broken RV32 build to work, > aimed for the bpf tree. Moving the extable.h is unrelated, and should > not be done here. IMO it would be better to have this patch small/easy > to read. I can't really see how this patch helps, when merging with > Jisheng's work. > > ...and I still think that: > --8<-- > diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/extable.c b/arch/riscv/mm/extable.c > index 18bf338303b6..ddb7d3b99e89 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/extable.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/extable.c > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/uaccess.h> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT > +#if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_RV64I) > int rv_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, > struct pt_regs *regs); > #endif > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ int fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs) > if (!fixup) > return 0; > > -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT > +#if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_RV64I) > if (regs->epc >= BPF_JIT_REGION_START && regs->epc < BPF_JIT_REGION_END) > return rv_bpf_fixup_exception(fixup, regs); > #endif > diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > index 2ca345c7b0bf..6372a235522d 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > @@ -459,6 +459,8 @@ static int emit_call(bool fixed, u64 addr, struct > rv_jit_context *ctx) > #define BPF_FIXUP_OFFSET_MASK GENMASK(26, 0) > #define BPF_FIXUP_REG_MASK GENMASK(31, 27) > > +int rv_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, > + struct pt_regs *regs); > int rv_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, > struct pt_regs *regs) > { > -->8-- > > is much simpler. Adding a function declaration in bpf_jit_comp64.c file cannot fix this compiler error: .... when CONFIG_BPF_JIT and CONFIG_ARCH_64I is open, There is the following compiler error (W=1): error: no previous prototype for 'rv_bpf_fixup_exception' .... To fix this compiler error, you need to make a declaration in a header file, which is also the reason for introducing extable.h. Before making this patch, I thought about this change, but on the whole, I think the modification scheme of adding header files moved me.;-) > > > > Thoughts? > Björn > > > > >> Thanks. >> Tong. >> >>> >>> Björn >>> . >>> > . >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: tongtiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com> To: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: fix some compiler error Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 15:26:48 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <f3ed7e48-c565-9147-eca0-6298a36b3d61@huawei.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAJ+HfNj_p36trWFzdyxVVgykrPVq=OvKcYq61w2QyKsHwa0gDw@mail.gmail.com> On 2021/11/3 14:10, Björn Töpel wrote: > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 at 04:06, tongtiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com> wrote: >> > [...] >>> >> Hi Björn: >> From the perspective of development, introduce asm/extable.h is also prepare for the >> subsequent modification of exception_table_entry, such as: >> 1. https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/10/20/591 >> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211019160219.5202-11-mark.rutland@arm.com/ >> >> Therefore, the prototype declarations and definitions related to kernel config are placed in head file, >> which can avoid compiler error and simplify the rendering of functions. >> > > Sure, but *this* patch is about getting the broken RV32 build to work, > aimed for the bpf tree. Moving the extable.h is unrelated, and should > not be done here. IMO it would be better to have this patch small/easy > to read. I can't really see how this patch helps, when merging with > Jisheng's work. > > ...and I still think that: > --8<-- > diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/extable.c b/arch/riscv/mm/extable.c > index 18bf338303b6..ddb7d3b99e89 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/extable.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/extable.c > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/uaccess.h> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT > +#if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_RV64I) > int rv_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, > struct pt_regs *regs); > #endif > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ int fixup_exception(struct pt_regs *regs) > if (!fixup) > return 0; > > -#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT > +#if defined(CONFIG_BPF_JIT) && defined(CONFIG_ARCH_RV64I) > if (regs->epc >= BPF_JIT_REGION_START && regs->epc < BPF_JIT_REGION_END) > return rv_bpf_fixup_exception(fixup, regs); > #endif > diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > index 2ca345c7b0bf..6372a235522d 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c > @@ -459,6 +459,8 @@ static int emit_call(bool fixed, u64 addr, struct > rv_jit_context *ctx) > #define BPF_FIXUP_OFFSET_MASK GENMASK(26, 0) > #define BPF_FIXUP_REG_MASK GENMASK(31, 27) > > +int rv_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, > + struct pt_regs *regs); > int rv_bpf_fixup_exception(const struct exception_table_entry *ex, > struct pt_regs *regs) > { > -->8-- > > is much simpler. Adding a function declaration in bpf_jit_comp64.c file cannot fix this compiler error: .... when CONFIG_BPF_JIT and CONFIG_ARCH_64I is open, There is the following compiler error (W=1): error: no previous prototype for 'rv_bpf_fixup_exception' .... To fix this compiler error, you need to make a declaration in a header file, which is also the reason for introducing extable.h. Before making this patch, I thought about this change, but on the whole, I think the modification scheme of adding header files moved me.;-) > > > > Thoughts? > Björn > > > > >> Thanks. >> Tong. >> >>> >>> Björn >>> . >>> > . > _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-03 7:27 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-11-02 14:56 [PATCH bpf-next] riscv, bpf: fix some compiler error Tong Tiangen 2021-11-02 14:56 ` Tong Tiangen 2021-11-02 15:45 ` Björn Töpel 2021-11-02 15:45 ` Björn Töpel 2021-11-03 3:06 ` tongtiangen 2021-11-03 3:06 ` tongtiangen 2021-11-03 6:10 ` Björn Töpel 2021-11-03 6:10 ` Björn Töpel 2021-11-03 7:26 ` tongtiangen [this message] 2021-11-03 7:26 ` tongtiangen 2021-11-03 7:41 ` Björn Töpel 2021-11-03 7:41 ` Björn Töpel
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=f3ed7e48-c565-9147-eca0-6298a36b3d61@huawei.com \ --to=tongtiangen@huawei.com \ --cc=andrii@kernel.org \ --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \ --cc=ast@kernel.org \ --cc=bjorn.topel@gmail.com \ --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \ --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \ --cc=kafai@fb.com \ --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \ --cc=palmerdabbelt@google.com \ --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \ --cc=songliubraving@fb.com \ --cc=yhs@fb.com \ /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: linkBe 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.