On Fri, 2024-07-19 at 16:21 -0700, Tony Ambardar wrote: [...] > define GCC_BPF_BUILD_RULE > - $(call msg,GCC-BPF,$(TRUNNER_BINARY),$2) > - $(Q)$(BPF_GCC) $3 -DBPF_NO_PRESERVE_ACCESS_INDEX -Wno-attributes -O2 -c $1 -o $2 > + $(call msg,GCC-BPF,$1,$3) > + $(Q)$(BPF_GCC) $4 -DBPF_NO_PRESERVE_ACCESS_INDEX -Wno-attributes -O2 -c $2 -o $3 > endef > > SKEL_BLACKLIST := btf__% test_pinning_invalid.c test_sk_assign.c > @@ -534,7 +535,7 @@ $(TRUNNER_BPF_OBJS): $(TRUNNER_OUTPUT)/%.bpf.o: \ > $(wildcard $(BPFDIR)/bpf_*.h) \ > $(wildcard $(BPFDIR)/*.bpf.h) \ > | $(TRUNNER_OUTPUT) $$(BPFOBJ) > - $$(call $(TRUNNER_BPF_BUILD_RULE),$$<,$$@, \ > + $$(call $(TRUNNER_BPF_BUILD_RULE),$(TRUNNER_BINARY),$$<,$$@, \ At first I found it quite confusing that we use TRUNNER_BINARY variable in this define, but can't use it in the CLANG_BPF_BUILD_RULE and co. However, it looks like this is because of the eval in the (eval (call ...)) pair, used to invoke DEFINE_TEST_RUNNER_RULES. Suggested patch works and is probably the simplest fix. Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> > $(TRUNNER_BPF_CFLAGS) \ > $$($$<-CFLAGS) \ > $$($$<-$2-CFLAGS))
