Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: fix compiling loop{1,2,3}.c on s390

2019-07-12 Thread Daniel Borkmann
On 07/12/2019 10:55 AM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: >> Am 11.07.2019 um 22:35 schrieb Stanislav Fomichev : >> >> On 07/11, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: >>> Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390. >>> >>> This patch series consists of three preparatory commits, which make it >>

Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: fix compiling loop{1,2,3}.c on s390

2019-07-12 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich
> Am 11.07.2019 um 22:35 schrieb Stanislav Fomichev : > > On 07/11, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: >> Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390. >> >> This patch series consists of three preparatory commits, which make it >> possible to use PT_REGS_RC in BPF selftests, follow

Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: fix compiling loop{1,2,3}.c on s390

2019-07-11 Thread Stanislav Fomichev
On 07/11, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390. > > This patch series consists of three preparatory commits, which make it > possible to use PT_REGS_RC in BPF selftests, followed by the actual fix. > > > > Will this also work for 32-bit x

[PATCH v4 bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: fix compiling loop{1,2,3}.c on s390

2019-07-11 Thread Ilya Leoshkevich
Use PT_REGS_RC(ctx) instead of ctx->rax, which is not present on s390. This patch series consists of three preparatory commits, which make it possible to use PT_REGS_RC in BPF selftests, followed by the actual fix. > > Will this also work for 32-bit x86? > Thanks, this is a good catch: this build