On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 8:18 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
That is fair.
> I can toss it out of bpf-next if it's easier.
How about you toss it out of bpf-next, then I resubmit the first two
patches (the barrier fixes) to bpf and the last three (new macros,
etc.) to bpf-next? Would that make it easier for you?
Thanks: Magnus
/Magnus
