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:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:32:08 -0700
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: don't use __constant_cpu_to_be32
Message-ID: <20190318163208.GC7431@mini-arch.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
References: <20190314061514.19586-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <CANn89iJMFfh1Pkvk9LOn3FwgAfpVjwS7q5x_8Y9zo2rzpy7w9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190315012012.GA748@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190315172428.GB5481@mini-arch.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
 <20190316051902.GA27630@tigerII.localdomain>
 <20190316142646.GA10815@tigerII.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190316142646.GA10815@tigerII.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 03/16, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/16/19 14:19), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > # define __bpf_ntohs(x)                 __builtin_bswap16(x)
> > # define __bpf_htons(x)                 __builtin_bswap16(x)
> > 
> > So I sort of suspect that what should have been done was that
> > __HAVE_BUILTIN_BSWAP16__ ifdef, just like what include/uapi/linux/swab.h
> > does.
> 
> E.g. use uapi __swab16/__swab32 in selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h?
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-
> 
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h | 32 ++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h
> index b25595ea4a78..68789b4c7ef0 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_endian.h
> @@ -20,38 +20,22 @@
>   * use different targets.
>   */
>  #if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
> -# define __bpf_ntohs(x)			__builtin_bswap16(x)
> -# define __bpf_htons(x)			__builtin_bswap16(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_ntohs(x)	___constant_swab16(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_htons(x)	___constant_swab16(x)
> -# define __bpf_ntohl(x)			__builtin_bswap32(x)
> -# define __bpf_htonl(x)			__builtin_bswap32(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_ntohl(x)	___constant_swab32(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_htonl(x)	___constant_swab32(x)
> +# define __bpf_ntohs(x)			__swab16(x)
> +# define __bpf_htons(x)			__swab16(x)
> +# define __bpf_ntohl(x)			__swab32(x)
> +# define __bpf_htonl(x)			__swab32(x)
>  #elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
>  # define __bpf_ntohs(x)			(x)
>  # define __bpf_htons(x)			(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_ntohs(x)	(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_htons(x)	(x)
>  # define __bpf_ntohl(x)			(x)
>  # define __bpf_htonl(x)			(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_ntohl(x)	(x)
> -# define __bpf_constant_htonl(x)	(x)
>  #else
>  # error "Fix your compiler's __BYTE_ORDER__?!"
>  #endif
>  
> -#define bpf_htons(x)				\
> -	(__builtin_constant_p(x) ?		\
> -	 __bpf_constant_htons(x) : __bpf_htons(x))
> -#define bpf_ntohs(x)				\
> -	(__builtin_constant_p(x) ?		\
> -	 __bpf_constant_ntohs(x) : __bpf_ntohs(x))
> -#define bpf_htonl(x)				\
> -	(__builtin_constant_p(x) ?		\
> -	 __bpf_constant_htonl(x) : __bpf_htonl(x))
> -#define bpf_ntohl(x)				\
> -	(__builtin_constant_p(x) ?		\
> -	 __bpf_constant_ntohl(x) : __bpf_ntohl(x))
> +#define bpf_htons(x)	__bpf_htons((x))
> +#define bpf_ntohs(x)	__bpf_ntohs((x))
> +#define bpf_htonl(x)	__bpf_htonl((x))
> +#define bpf_ntohl(x)	__bpf_ntohl((x))
At this point we can probably drop __bpf_xxx as well?
Care to resend with proper description when bpf-next opens?

>  
>  #endif /* __BPF_ENDIAN__ */