sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > ``BPF_ADD | BPF_X | BPF_ALU`` means:: > > > - dst_reg = (u32) dst_reg + (u32) src_reg; > > + dst = (u32) (dst + src) > > IIUC, by going from (u32) + (u32) to (u32)(), we want to signal that the value > will just wrap around? Right. In particular the old line could be confusing if one misinterpreted it as saying that the addition could overflow into a higher bit. The new line is intended to be unambiguous that the upper 32 bits are 0. > But isn't it more confusing now because it's unclear > what the sign of the dst/src is (s32 vs u32)? As stated the upper 32 bits have to be 0, just as any other u32 assignment. > Also, we do keep (u32) ^ (u32) for BPF_XOR below.. Well for XOR it's equivalent either way so didn't need a change. Thanks for reviewing, Dave
