On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:26 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:03:14 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:56 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > How so? It's using in-tree headers instead of system ones. > > > Many samples seem to be doing the same thing. > > > > There is no such thing as "usr/include" in the kernel build and source trees. > > Hm. I thought bpfilter somehow depends on make headers. But it doesn't > seem to. Reverting now. Thanks! Right. To explain it a bit further for the author of the patch: Some samples makefiles use this -I usr/include pattern. That's different. This local "usr/include" is a result of 'make headers_install'. For samples and such it's ok to depend on that, but bpfilter is the part of the kernel build. It cannot depend on the 'make headers_install' step, so the fix has to be different. > > > > Also please don't take bpf patches. > > > > > > You had it marked it as netdev in your patchwork :/ > > > > It was delegated automatically by the patchwork system. > > I didn't have time to reassign, but you should have known better > > when you saw 'bpfilter' in the subject. > > The previous committers for bpfilter are almost all Dave, so I checked > your patchwork to make sure and it was netdev... It was my fault. I was sloppy in the past and didn't pay enough attention to bpfilter and it started to bitrot because Dave was applying patches with his normal SLAs while I was silent.
