Fix several typos and references to non-existing headers. Also use __BYTE_ORDER__ instead of __BYTE_ORDER for consistency with the rest of the bpf code - see commit 45f2bebc8079 ("libbpf: Fix endianness detection in BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD_PROBED()") for rationale). Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h | 4 ++-- tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c | 12 ++++++------ 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h index 60237acf6b02..420d743734e1 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.bpf.h @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res) case BPF_USDT_ARG_REG_DEREF: /* Arg is in memory addressed by register, plus some offset * (e.g., "-4@-1204(%rbp)" in USDT arg spec). Register is - * identified lik with BPF_USDT_ARG_REG case, and the offset + * identified like with BPF_USDT_ARG_REG case, and the offset * is in arg_spec->val_off. We first fetch register contents * from pt_regs, then do another user-space probe read to * fetch argument value itself. @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ int bpf_usdt_arg(struct pt_regs *ctx, __u64 arg_num, long *res) /* Retrieve user-specified cookie value provided during attach as * bpf_usdt_opts.usdt_cookie. This serves the same purpose as BPF cookie * returned by bpf_get_attach_cookie(). Libbpf's support for USDT is itself - * utilizaing BPF cookies internally, so user can't use BPF cookie directly + * utilizing BPF cookies internally, so user can't use BPF cookie directly * for USDT programs and has to use bpf_usdt_cookie() API instead. */ static inline __noinline diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c index c5acf2824fcc..99a7c614c7b1 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/usdt.c @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ * code through spec map. This allows BPF applications to quickly fetch the * actual value at runtime using a simple BPF-side code. * - * With basics out of the way, let's go over less immeditately obvious aspects + * With basics out of the way, let's go over less immediately obvious aspects * of supporting USDTs. * * First, there is no special USDT BPF program type. It is actually just @@ -189,14 +189,14 @@ #define USDT_NOTE_TYPE 3 #define USDT_NOTE_NAME "stapsdt" -/* should match exactly enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type from bpf_usdt.bpf.h */ +/* should match exactly enum __bpf_usdt_arg_type from usdt.bpf.h */ enum usdt_arg_type { USDT_ARG_CONST, USDT_ARG_REG, USDT_ARG_REG_DEREF, }; -/* should match exactly struct __bpf_usdt_arg_spec from bpf_usdt.bpf.h */ +/* should match exactly struct __bpf_usdt_arg_spec from usdt.bpf.h */ struct usdt_arg_spec { __u64 val_off; enum usdt_arg_type arg_type; @@ -328,9 +328,9 @@ static int sanity_check_usdt_elf(Elf *elf, const char *path) return -EBADF; } -#if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN +#if __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__ endianness = ELFDATA2LSB; -#elif __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN +#elif __BYTE_ORDER__ == __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__ endianness = ELFDATA2MSB; #else # error "Unrecognized __BYTE_ORDER__" @@ -843,7 +843,7 @@ static int bpf_link_usdt_detach(struct bpf_link *link) sizeof(*new_free_ids)); /* If we couldn't resize free_spec_ids, we'll just leak * a bunch of free IDs; this is very unlikely to happen and if - * system is so exausted on memory, it's the least of user's + * system is so exhausted on memory, it's the least of user's * concerns, probably. * So just do our best here to return those IDs to usdt_manager. */ -- 2.35.1