On 07/02/2019 05:39 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390. > > Pass -D__TARGET_ARCH_$(ARCH) to selftests in order to choose a proper > PT_REGS_RC variant. > > Fix s930 -> s390 typo. > > On s390, provide the forward declaration of struct pt_regs and cast it > to user_pt_regs in PT_REGS_* macros. This is necessary, because instead > of the full struct pt_regs, s390 exposes only its first field > user_pt_regs to userspace, and bpf_helpers.h is used with both userspace > (in selftests) and kernel (in samples) headers. > > On x86, provide userspace versions of PT_REGS_* macros. Unlike s390, x86 > provides struct pt_regs to both userspace and kernel, however, with > different field names. > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com>
This doesn't apply cleanly to bpf-next, please rebase. I also think this should be ideally split into multiple patches, seems like 4 different issues which you are addressing in this single patch. Thanks, Daniel
