Thanks!
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 03:25, <menglong8.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Menglong Dong <dong.menglong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This 'BPF_ADD' is duplicated, and I belive it should be 'BPF_AND'.
>
> Fixes: 981f94c3e921 ("bpf: Add bitwise atomic instructions")
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <dong.menglong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/disasm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/disasm.c b/kernel/bpf/disasm.c
> index 19ff8fed7f4b..3acc7e0b6916 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/disasm.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/disasm.c
> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ void print_bpf_insn(const struct bpf_insn_cbs *cbs,
> insn->dst_reg,
> insn->off, insn->src_reg);
> else if (BPF_MODE(insn->code) == BPF_ATOMIC &&
> - (insn->imm == BPF_ADD || insn->imm == BPF_ADD ||
> + (insn->imm == BPF_ADD || insn->imm == BPF_AND ||
> insn->imm == BPF_OR || insn->imm == BPF_XOR)) {
> verbose(cbs->private_data, "(%02x) lock *(%s *)(r%d %+d) %s r%d\n",
> insn->code,
> --
> 2.25.1
>
