Re: [PATCH] tcp: don't use __constant_cpu_to_be32

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (03/18/19 09:32), Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
[..]
> > -#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?

OK.

	-ss