Yauheni Kaliuta wrote:
Can you please check if the below patch fixes the issue for you?
It does, thanks!
I was actually thinking later about something similar and I wonder
about naming. Should the function be renamed to more generic, and is
it really for func_addr only or can be any generic value?
Good point. Looking at jit_subprogs(), it looks like the extra pass
fixes up addresses of subprog calls, as well as that of other bpf
functions. So, I agree that it makes sense to change the function name.
func_addr looks to still be correct though.
Thanks for testing this. I will update this patch and post it along with
a few other fixes.
Regards,
Naveen
