On 04/07/2019 04:57 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [...] > I don't get this shadow vs normal .data idea. > The more we talk the more I'm convinced that this is not a good api. > Say in the future we indeed have these shadow + normal .data > then just use the same insn->imm field to refer to shadow part. > Even if there are N such regions. The value_size is known. > So use 0<=imm<value_size to refer to 'index' 0 and > value_size<=imm<value_size*2 to refer to 'index' 1. > There is absolutely no need for offset and index to be separate. > Address of a byte inside bpf array can be expressed with single integer. Hmm, fair enough, I guess it also always boils down to the same, that is, discussing such facility once the need comes up and given neither of us would have a need right now, I'll just respin on Monday morning with the index bit removed as I had it originally. Lets extend it only upon need, probably good we discussed it through. :-) Thanks, Daniel
