On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:25:39PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > On 08/06/17 03:35, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > such large back and forth move doesn't help reviewing. > > may be just merge it into previous patch? > > Or keep that function in the right place in patch 2 already? > I think 'diff' got a bit confused, and maybe with different options I could > have got it to produce something more readable. But I think I will just > merge this into patch 2; it's only separate because it started out as an > experiment.
after sleeping on it I'm not sure we should be allowing such pointer arithmetic. In normal C code people do fancy tricks with lower 3 bits of the pointer, but in bpf code I cannot see such use case. What kind of realistic code will be doing ptr & 0x40 ?
