On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 07:55:30AM +0200, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:59 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the bpf-next tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc perf)
> > failed like this:
> >
> > In file included from xsk.c:32:
> > libbpf_util.h:49:3: error: #warning Architecture missing native barrier functions in libbpf_util.h. [-Werror=cpp]
> > # warning Architecture missing native barrier functions in libbpf_util.h.
> > ^~~~~~~
> > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> >
> > Caused by commit
> >
> > b7e3a28019c9 ("libbpf: remove dependency on barrier.h in xsk.h")
> >
> > I have applied the following patch for today ... please fix this.
> >
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:54:56 +1000
> > Subject: [PATCH] suppress warning in tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h
> > index 172b707e007b..a54eb2cdbdd6 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_util.h
> > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ do { \
> > # define libbpf_smp_mb() asm volatile("dmb ish" : : : "memory")
> > # define libbpf_smp_rwmb() libbpf_smp_mb()
> > #else
> > -# warning Architecture missing native barrier functions in libbpf_util.h.
> > +//# warning Architecture missing native barrier functions in libbpf_util.h.
> > # define libbpf_smp_rmb() __sync_synchronize()
> > # define libbpf_smp_wmb() __sync_synchronize()
> > # define libbpf_smp_mb() __sync_synchronize()
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
>
> My apologies, I will fix this. I just have two questions first so I do
> not mess things up.
>
> * I see my commit in bpf-next but not in bpf. As I submitted it
> against bpf, what was the reason it was applied to bpf-next instead?
> Unfortunately, I forgot to add "Fixes" tags to the commits, so was
> this the reason? I view 4 out of 5 of these patches as bug fixes, the
> last one being an optimization.
new macros that users still have to learn how to use are hardly fixes.
I can toss it out of bpf-next if it's easier.
