From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 00/43] First set of verifier/*.c migrated to inline assembly
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 20:15:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbbgLg3w5ySX8XxBHBR0gzr71XPvJ5s1Tw=A6ScA6Vmwg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQL5O4FaDDOUn0q1urfhquek4dE9nrhWa7mVYwvMhi311A@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 6:19 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 9:16 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It was my understanding from the RFC feedback that this "lighter" way
> > > is preferable and we already have some tests written like that.
> > > Don't have a strong opinion on this topic.
> >
> > Ack, I'm obviously losing a bunch of context here :-(
> > I like coalescing better, but if the original suggestion was to use
> > this lighter way, I'll keep that in mind while reviewing.
>
> I still prefer the clean look of the tests, so I've applied this set.
>
> But I'm not going to insist that this is the only style developers
> should use moving forward.
> Whoever prefers "" style can use it in the future tests.
Great, because I found out in practice that inability to add comments
to the manually written asm code is a pretty big limitation. I do like
the lightweight feel of this unquoted style as well, but practically
we'll probably have to live with both styles.
> I find them harder to read, but oh well.
>
> Ed,
> the only small nit I've noticed is that the tests are compiled
> for both test_progs and test_progs-no_alu32 though they're in asm.
> So we're wasting a bit of CI time running them in both flavors.
> Not a big deal and maybe not worth fixing, since they're pretty fast.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-27 3:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-25 2:54 [PATCH bpf-next 00/43] First set of verifier/*.c migrated to inline assembly Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 01/43] selftests/bpf: Report program name on parse_test_spec error Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 02/43] selftests/bpf: __imm_insn & __imm_const macro for bpf_misc.h Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 03/43] selftests/bpf: Unprivileged tests for test_loader.c Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 04/43] selftests/bpf: Tests execution support " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 05/43] selftests/bpf: prog_tests entry point for migrated test_verifier tests Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 06/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/and.c converted to inline assembly Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 07/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/array_access.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 08/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/basic_stack.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 09/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/bounds_deduction.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 10/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/bounds_mix_sign_unsign.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 11/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/cfg.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 12/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/cgroup_inv_retcode.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 13/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/cgroup_skb.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 14/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/cgroup_storage.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 15/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/const_or.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 16/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/ctx_sk_msg.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 17/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/direct_stack_access_wraparound.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next 18/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/div0.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 19/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/div_overflow.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 20/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/helper_access_var_len.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 21/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/helper_packet_access.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 22/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/helper_restricted.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 23/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/helper_value_access.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 24/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/int_ptr.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 25/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/ld_ind.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 26/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/leak_ptr.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 27/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/map_ptr.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 28/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/map_ret_val.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 29/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/masking.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 30/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/meta_access.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 31/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/raw_stack.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 32/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/raw_tp_writable.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 33/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/ringbuf.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 34/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/spill_fill.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 35/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/stack_ptr.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 36/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/uninit.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 37/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/value_adj_spill.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 38/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/value.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 39/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/value_or_null.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 40/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/var_off.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 41/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/xadd.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 2:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next 42/43] selftests/bpf: verifier/xdp.c " Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 3:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next 00/43] First set of verifier/*.c migrated " Stanislav Fomichev
2023-03-25 12:20 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-25 16:16 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2023-03-26 1:19 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-27 3:15 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2023-03-27 3:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-27 11:26 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-27 16:35 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-27 16:37 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-26 1:32 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2023-03-28 3:48 ` Daniel Borkmann
2023-03-28 21:52 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-28 22:24 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-28 22:38 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-03-28 23:31 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-03-29 0:11 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-03-29 0:07 ` Andrii Nakryiko
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='CAEf4BzbbgLg3w5ySX8XxBHBR0gzr71XPvJ5s1Tw=A6ScA6Vmwg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sdf@google.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).