On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:07 AM Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/9/2023 12:46 AM, Florent Revest wrote: > > @@ -1799,7 +1799,7 @@ static int prepare_trampoline(struct jit_ctx *ctx, struct bpf_tramp_image *im, > > * [ ... ] > > * SP + args_off [ arg1 ] > > * > > - * SP + nargs_off [ args count ] > > + * SP + nregs_off [ arg regs count ] > > For description consistency, should arg1 ... argN in the previous > lines also be changed to arg reg 1 ... arg reg N? Sure, sounds good :) I'll send a v2 (for some reason your email ended up in my spam folder, lucky I noticed it)
