lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tcp: don't use __constant_cpu_to_be32
On 03/16, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/16/19 14:19), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > # define __bpf_ntohs(x) __builtin_bswap16(x)
> > # define __bpf_htons(x) __builtin_bswap16(x)
> >
> > So I sort of suspect that what should have been done was that
> > __HAVE_BUILTIN_BSWAP16__ ifdef, just like what include/uapi/linux/swab.h
> > does.
>
> E.g. use uapi __swab16/__swab32 in selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h?
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h | 32 ++++++++------------------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h
> index b25595ea4a78..68789b4c7ef0 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h
> @@ -20,38 +20,22 @@
> * use different targets.
> */
> #if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
> -# define __bpf_ntohs(x) __builtin_bswap16(x)
> -# define __bpf_htons(x) __builtin_bswap16(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_ntohs(x) ___constant_swab16(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_htons(x) ___constant_swab16(x)
> -# define __bpf_ntohl(x) __builtin_bswap32(x)
> -# define __bpf_htonl(x) __builtin_bswap32(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_ntohl(x) ___constant_swab32(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_htonl(x) ___constant_swab32(x)
> +# define __bpf_ntohs(x) __swab16(x)
> +# define __bpf_htons(x) __swab16(x)
> +# define __bpf_ntohl(x) __swab32(x)
> +# define __bpf_htonl(x) __swab32(x)
> #elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
> # define __bpf_ntohs(x) (x)
> # define __bpf_htons(x) (x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_ntohs(x) (x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_htons(x) (x)
> # define __bpf_ntohl(x) (x)
> # define __bpf_htonl(x) (x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_ntohl(x) (x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_htonl(x) (x)
> #else
> # error "Fix your compiler's __BYTE_ORDER__?!"
> #endif
>
> -#define bpf_htons(x) \
> - (__builtin_constant_p(x) ? \
> - __bpf_constant_htons(x) : __bpf_htons(x))
> -#define bpf_ntohs(x) \
> - (__builtin_constant_p(x) ? \
> - __bpf_constant_ntohs(x) : __bpf_ntohs(x))
> -#define bpf_htonl(x) \
> - (__builtin_constant_p(x) ? \
> - __bpf_constant_htonl(x) : __bpf_htonl(x))
> -#define bpf_ntohl(x) \
> - (__builtin_constant_p(x) ? \
> - __bpf_constant_ntohl(x) : __bpf_ntohl(x))
> +#define bpf_htons(x) __bpf_htons((x))
> +#define bpf_ntohs(x) __bpf_ntohs((x))
> +#define bpf_htonl(x) __bpf_htonl((x))
> +#define bpf_ntohl(x) __bpf_ntohl((x))
At this point we can probably drop __bpf_xxx as well?
Care to resend with proper description when bpf-next opens?

>
> #endif /* __BPF_ENDIAN__ */

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-18 17:33    [W:0.080 / U:3.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site