On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 9:23 AM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 1/31/24 9:09 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 9:16 PM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/30/24 11:36 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>> LIBBPF_API annotation seems missing on libbpf_set_memlock_rlim API, so
> >>> add it to make this API callable from libbpf's shared library version.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: e542f2c4cd16 ("libbpf: Auto-bump RLIMIT_MEMLOCK if kernel needs it for BPF")
> >> Maybe we should the following commit as Fixes?
> >>
> >> ab9a5a05dc48 libbpf: fix up few libbpf.map problems
> >>
> > The one I referenced introduced the problem, the ab9a5a05dc48 one
> > fixed some problems, but not all of them (for
> > libbpf_set_memlock_rlim). So it feels like pointing to the originating
> > commit is better?
>
> Maybe we can put two Fixes here? Just having e542f2c4cd16 is a little
> confusing since libbpf_set_memlock_rlim is not in libbpf.map with
> e542f2c4cd16.
I don't mind, but I'll hold off on sending v2 just for this, maybe
someone can add it while applying.
>
> >
> >> Other than the above, LGTM.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> >>> index 1441f642c563..f866e98b2436 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> >>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> >>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
> >>> extern "C" {
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>> -int libbpf_set_memlock_rlim(size_t memlock_bytes);
> >>> +LIBBPF_API int libbpf_set_memlock_rlim(size_t memlock_bytes);
> >>>
> >>> struct bpf_map_create_opts {
> >>> size_t sz; /* size of this struct for forward/backward compatibility */
