Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:14:37 +0000
From:   Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc:     bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 01/13] bpf: x86: Factor out emission of
 ModR/M for *(reg + off)
Message-ID: <20201201121437.GB2114905@google.com>
References: <20201127175738.1085417-1-jackmanb@google.com>
 <20201127175738.1085417-2-jackmanb@google.com>
 <20201129011552.jbepegeeo2lqv6ke@ast-mbp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201129011552.jbepegeeo2lqv6ke@ast-mbp>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 05:15:52PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 05:57:26PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > +/* Emit the ModR/M byte for addressing *(r1 + off) and r2 */
> > +static void emit_modrm_dstoff(u8 **pprog, u32 r1, u32 r2, int off)
> 
> same concern as in the another patch. If you could avoid intel's puzzling names
> like above it will make reviewing the patch easier.

In this case there is actually a call like

  emit_modrm_dstoff(&prog, src_reg, dst_reg)

So calling the function args dst_reg, src_reg would be misleading.

I could call them ptr_reg and val_reg or something?