Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 11:14:19 +0800
From:   Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
To:     daniel@iogearbox.net
Cc:     linux@armlinux.org.uk, ast@fb.com, illusionist.neo@gmail.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] bpf, arm32: Fix inconsistent naming about
 emit_a32_lsr_r64|emit_a32_lsr_i64
Message-ID: <20180510031419.GA26016@udknight>
Mail-Followup-To: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, ast@fb.com, illusionist.neo@gmail.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

The reasonable names for emit_a32_lsr_r64|emit_a32_lsr_i64 are
emit_a32_rsh_r64|emit_a32_rsh_i64.

This patch also correct a wrong comment.

Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
---
 arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
index 82689b9..c0b4124 100644
--- a/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
+++ b/arch/arm/net/bpf_jit_32.c
@@ -708,7 +708,7 @@ static inline void emit_a32_arsh_r64(const u8 dst[], const u8 src[], bool dstk,
 }
 
 /* dst = dst >> src */
-static inline void emit_a32_lsr_r64(const u8 dst[], const u8 src[], bool dstk,
+static inline void emit_a32_rsh_r64(const u8 dst[], const u8 src[], bool dstk,
 				     bool sstk, struct jit_ctx *ctx) {
 	const u8 *tmp = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_1];
 	const u8 *tmp2 = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_2];
@@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ static inline void emit_a32_lsr_r64(const u8 dst[], const u8 src[], bool dstk,
 		emit(ARM_LDR_I(rm, ARM_SP, STACK_VAR(dst_hi)), ctx);
 	}
 
-	/* Do LSH operation */
+	/* Do RSH operation */
 	emit(ARM_RSB_I(ARM_IP, rt, 32), ctx);
 	emit(ARM_SUBS_I(tmp2[0], rt, 32), ctx);
 	emit(ARM_MOV_SR(ARM_LR, rd, SRTYPE_LSR, rt), ctx);
@@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ static inline void emit_a32_lsh_i64(const u8 dst[], bool dstk,
 }
 
 /* dst = dst >> val */
-static inline void emit_a32_lsr_i64(const u8 dst[], bool dstk,
+static inline void emit_a32_rsh_i64(const u8 dst[], bool dstk,
 				    const u32 val, struct jit_ctx *ctx) {
 	const u8 *tmp = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_1];
 	const u8 *tmp2 = bpf2a32[TMP_REG_2];
@@ -1330,7 +1330,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_K:
 		if (unlikely(imm > 63))
 			return -EINVAL;
-		emit_a32_lsr_i64(dst, dstk, imm, ctx);
+		emit_a32_rsh_i64(dst, dstk, imm, ctx);
 		break;
 	/* dst = dst << src */
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_LSH | BPF_X:
@@ -1338,7 +1338,7 @@ static int build_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct jit_ctx *ctx)
 		break;
 	/* dst = dst >> src */
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_RSH | BPF_X:
-		emit_a32_lsr_r64(dst, src, dstk, sstk, ctx);
+		emit_a32_rsh_r64(dst, src, dstk, sstk, ctx);
 		break;
 	/* dst = dst >> src (signed) */
 	case BPF_ALU64 | BPF_ARSH | BPF_X:
-- 
1.8.5.6.2.g3d8a54e.dirty