summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/bpf
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAndrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>2019-02-28 17:12:21 -0800
committerDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>2019-03-02 00:40:04 +0100
commit46604676c8c6c4c07649767d32ae66f4429ccd6f (patch)
treeb536757b30266fa9c6f8c02c51db2255991123cc /Documentation/bpf
parent9ab5305dbe3ffcd146852e28aa76a917e45c7541 (diff)
docs/bpf: minor casing/punctuation fixes
Fix few casing and punctuation glitches. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/bpf')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst24
1 files changed, 12 insertions, 12 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
index 7cc9e368c1e9..10453c627135 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
@@ -36,27 +36,27 @@ consideration important quirks of other architectures) and
defines calling convention that is compatible with C calling
convention of the linux kernel on those architectures.
-Q: can multiple return values be supported in the future?
+Q: Can multiple return values be supported in the future?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A: NO. BPF allows only register R0 to be used as return value.
-Q: can more than 5 function arguments be supported in the future?
+Q: Can more than 5 function arguments be supported in the future?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A: NO. BPF calling convention only allows registers R1-R5 to be used
as arguments. BPF is not a standalone instruction set.
(unlike x64 ISA that allows msft, cdecl and other conventions)
-Q: can BPF programs access instruction pointer or return address?
+Q: Can BPF programs access instruction pointer or return address?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A: NO.
-Q: can BPF programs access stack pointer ?
+Q: Can BPF programs access stack pointer ?
------------------------------------------
A: NO.
Only frame pointer (register R10) is accessible.
From compiler point of view it's necessary to have stack pointer.
-For example LLVM defines register R11 as stack pointer in its
+For example, LLVM defines register R11 as stack pointer in its
BPF backend, but it makes sure that generated code never uses it.
Q: Does C-calling convention diminishes possible use cases?
@@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ A: YES.
BPF design forces addition of major functionality in the form
of kernel helper functions and kernel objects like BPF maps with
seamless interoperability between them. It lets kernel call into
-BPF programs and programs call kernel helpers with zero overhead.
-As all of them were native C code. That is particularly the case
+BPF programs and programs call kernel helpers with zero overhead,
+as all of them were native C code. That is particularly the case
for JITed BPF programs that are indistinguishable from
native kernel C code.
@@ -75,9 +75,9 @@ Q: Does it mean that 'innovative' extensions to BPF code are disallowed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Soft yes.
-At least for now until BPF core has support for
+At least for now, until BPF core has support for
bpf-to-bpf calls, indirect calls, loops, global variables,
-jump tables, read only sections and all other normal constructs
+jump tables, read-only sections, and all other normal constructs
that C code can produce.
Q: Can loops be supported in a safe way?
@@ -109,16 +109,16 @@ For example why BPF_JNE and other compare and jumps are not cpu-like?
A: This was necessary to avoid introducing flags into ISA which are
impossible to make generic and efficient across CPU architectures.
-Q: why BPF_DIV instruction doesn't map to x64 div?
+Q: Why BPF_DIV instruction doesn't map to x64 div?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A: Because if we picked one-to-one relationship to x64 it would have made
it more complicated to support on arm64 and other archs. Also it
needs div-by-zero runtime check.
-Q: why there is no BPF_SDIV for signed divide operation?
+Q: Why there is no BPF_SDIV for signed divide operation?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A: Because it would be rarely used. llvm errors in such case and
-prints a suggestion to use unsigned divide instead
+prints a suggestion to use unsigned divide instead.
Q: Why BPF has implicit prologue and epilogue?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~