On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 12:19 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 12:15 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 11:29 PM Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The check 't->size && t->size != size' is redundant because if t->size
> > > compares unequal to 0, we will just skip straight to sorting variables.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > > index ad43b6ce825e..7e978feaf822 100644
> > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > > @@ -2795,7 +2795,7 @@ static int btf_fixup_datasec(struct bpf_object *obj, struct btf *btf,
> > > goto sort_vars;
> > >
> > > ret = find_elf_sec_sz(obj, name, &size);
> > > - if (ret || !size || (t->size && t->size != size)) {
> >
> > t->size check is redundant, but (t->size != size) is not
>
> ah, never mind :) applied to bpf-next
>
> >
> > > + if (ret || !size) {
> > > pr_debug("Invalid size for section %s: %u bytes\n", name, size);
> > > return -ENOENT;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.35.1
> > >
Thanks for your reply.
It seems that the patch has not been applied to bpf-next yet,
I can't find it in the commits on the master branch.
Is there anything else I need to do?
