Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 19/19] selftests/bpf: Fix errors compiling cg_storage_multi.h with musl libc

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:56 PM Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Remove a redundant include of '<asm/types.h>', whose needed definitions are
> already included (via '<linux/types.h>') in cg_storage_multi_egress_only.c,
> cg_storage_multi_isolated.c, and cg_storage_multi_shared.c. This avoids
> redefinition errors seen compiling for mips64el/musl-libc like:
>
>   In file included from progs/cg_storage_multi_egress_only.c:13:
>   In file included from progs/cg_storage_multi.h:6:
>   In file included from /usr/mips64el-linux-gnuabi64/include/asm/types.h:23:
>   /usr/include/asm-generic/int-l64.h:29:25: error: typedef redefinition with different types ('long' vs 'long long')
>      29 | typedef __signed__ long __s64;
>         |                         ^
>   /usr/include/asm-generic/int-ll64.h:30:44: note: previous definition is here
>      30 | __extension__ typedef __signed__ long long __s64;
>         |                                            ^
>
> Fixes: 9e5bd1f7633b ("selftests/bpf: Test CGROUP_STORAGE map can't be used by multiple progs")
> Signed-off-by: Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cg_storage_multi.h | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cg_storage_multi.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cg_storage_multi.h
> index a0778fe7857a..41d59f0ee606 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cg_storage_multi.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cg_storage_multi.h
> @@ -3,8 +3,6 @@
>  #ifndef __PROGS_CG_STORAGE_MULTI_H
>  #define __PROGS_CG_STORAGE_MULTI_H
>
> -#include <asm/types.h>
> -
>  struct cgroup_value {
>         __u32 egress_pkts;
>         __u32 ingress_pkts;
> --
> 2.34.1
>

Hmm, some linter checks prefer headers themselves include everything
they use. This header uses __u32 and after this patch it would include
no headers. Would it be okay to include <linux/types.h> or we don't
care?

YiFei Zhu





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux