On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 04:43:24PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > + ======== ===== ========================= > > + code value description > > + ======== ===== ========================= > > + BPF_JA 0x00 BPF_JMP only > > BPF_JEQ 0x10 > > BPF_JGT 0x20 > > BPF_JGE 0x30 > > BPF_JSET 0x40 > > Not your fault, but the new table looks odd with > only some opcodes documented. > Same issue with BPF_ALU table. > In the past the documented opcodes were for eBPF only and > not documented in both, so it wasn't that bad. > At least there was a reason for discrepancy. > Now it just odd. > May be add a comment to all rows? Yes, having the description everywhere would be good. But I'll have to do research to actually figure out what should go in there for some. > > + ============= ===== ===================== > > + mode modifier value description > > + ============= ===== ===================== > > + BPF_IMM 0x00 used for 64-bit mov > > + BPF_ABS 0x20 > > + BPF_IND 0x40 > > + BPF_MEM 0x60 > > May be say here that ABS and IND are legacy for compat with classic only? > and MEM is the most common modifier for load/store? Sure.
