Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "em_none".
Did you mean:
dma_none
2015 Aug 05
2
[LLVMdev] Cc llvmdev: Re: llvm bpf debug info. Re: [RFC PATCH v4 3/3] bpf: Introduce function for outputing data to perf event
Hi, Alexei
On 2015/7/30 1:13, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 7/29/15 2:38 AM, He Kuang wrote:
>> Hi, Alexei
>>
>> On 2015/7/28 10:18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On 7/25/15 3:04 AM, He Kuang wrote:
>>>> I noticed that for 64-bit elf format, the reloc sections have
>>>> 'Addend' in the entry, but there's no 'Addend' info
2016 Jun 16
2
[iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 1/5] BPF: Use a provisional ELF e_machine value
...ne is allocated, this enum will be
> // updated to use it.
> EM_LANAI = 0x8123, // Lanai 32-bit processor
> +
> + EM_BPF = 0xeb9f, // Linux kernel bpf virtual machine
was this id reserved this with whoever managing the numbers ?
The only reason bpf backend used em_none is that we were couldn't
figure out who's responsible for keeping these records.
2016 Jun 16
2
[iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 1/5] BPF: Use a provisional ELF e_machine value
..., // Linux kernel bpf virtual machine
Great, can that be assumed the final magic e_machine number for the ELF
header that eBPF loaders can check for as well then (I do like 0xeb9f ;))?
>> was this id reserved this with whoever managing the numbers ?
>> The only reason bpf backend used em_none is that we were couldn't
>> figure out who's responsible for keeping these records.
>
> No, it's an unofficial number. But there's history for this.
> In binutils there's a comment
>
>
> /* If it is necessary to assign new unofficial EM_* values, please...