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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210118155735.532663-1-jackmanb@google.com> <20210118155735.532663-2-jackmanb@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210118155735.532663-2-jackmanb@google.com>
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:17:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXUXMytdMUT5FVtn=L4naMmbq14FXUEFqRTu3323ARKomJRJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] docs: bpf: Fixup atomics markup
To:     Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Cc:     bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 4:59 PM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:
>
> This fixues up the markup to fix a warning, be more consistent with

s/fixues/fixes/ ?

> use of monospace, and use the correct .rst syntax for <em> (* instead
> of _).
>

> NB this conflicts with Lukas' patch at [1], which just fixes the
> warning. The scope of this one is a little broader.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CA+i-1C3cEXqxcXfD4sibQfx+dtmmzvOzruhk8J5pAw3g5v=KgA@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
>
As I wrote in my patch, I did minimal changes. Your bit more extensive
changes make sense.

I suggest dropping this comment above starting from NB and the link;
it is not relevant for the history. You can of course move it below
the "---"; so it is not picked up into the git history.

Other than that:

Reviewed-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>


> Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/networking/filter.rst | 19 ++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> index f6d8f90e9a56..4c2bb4c6364d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
> @@ -1048,12 +1048,12 @@ Unlike classic BPF instruction set, eBPF has generic load/store operations::
>  Where size is one of: BPF_B or BPF_H or BPF_W or BPF_DW.
>
>  It also includes atomic operations, which use the immediate field for extra
> -encoding.
> +encoding::
>
>     .imm = BPF_ADD, .code = BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_W  | BPF_STX: lock xadd *(u32 *)(dst_reg + off16) += src_reg
>     .imm = BPF_ADD, .code = BPF_ATOMIC | BPF_DW | BPF_STX: lock xadd *(u64 *)(dst_reg + off16) += src_reg
>
> -The basic atomic operations supported are:
> +The basic atomic operations supported are::
>
>      BPF_ADD
>      BPF_AND
> @@ -1066,12 +1066,12 @@ memory location addresed by ``dst_reg + off`` is atomically modified, with
>  immediate, then these operations also overwrite ``src_reg`` with the
>  value that was in memory before it was modified.
>
> -The more special operations are:
> +The more special operations are::
>
>      BPF_XCHG
>
>  This atomically exchanges ``src_reg`` with the value addressed by ``dst_reg +
> -off``.
> +off``. ::
>
>      BPF_CMPXCHG
>
> @@ -1081,18 +1081,19 @@ before is loaded back to ``R0``.
>
>  Note that 1 and 2 byte atomic operations are not supported.
>
> -Except ``BPF_ADD`` _without_ ``BPF_FETCH`` (for legacy reasons), all 4 byte
> +Except ``BPF_ADD`` *without* ``BPF_FETCH`` (for legacy reasons), all 4 byte
>  atomic operations require alu32 mode. Clang enables this mode by default in
>  architecture v3 (``-mcpu=v3``). For older versions it can be enabled with
>  ``-Xclang -target-feature -Xclang +alu32``.
>
> -You may encounter BPF_XADD - this is a legacy name for BPF_ATOMIC, referring to
> -the exclusive-add operation encoded when the immediate field is zero.
> +You may encounter ``BPF_XADD`` - this is a legacy name for ``BPF_ATOMIC``,
> +referring to the exclusive-add operation encoded when the immediate field is
> +zero.
>
> -eBPF has one 16-byte instruction: BPF_LD | BPF_DW | BPF_IMM which consists
> +eBPF has one 16-byte instruction: ``BPF_LD | BPF_DW | BPF_IMM`` which consists
>  of two consecutive ``struct bpf_insn`` 8-byte blocks and interpreted as single
>  instruction that loads 64-bit immediate value into a dst_reg.
> -Classic BPF has similar instruction: BPF_LD | BPF_W | BPF_IMM which loads
> +Classic BPF has similar instruction: ``BPF_LD | BPF_W | BPF_IMM`` which loads
>  32-bit immediate value into a register.
>
>  eBPF verifier
> --
> 2.30.0.284.gd98b1dd5eaa7-goog
>