Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2023/1/3 15:37, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>> index bf4721a99a09..fa8b03c52463 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c
>>
>>> @@ -1266,7 +1389,7 @@ int bpf_jit_emit_insn(const struct bpf_insn *insn, struct rv_jit_context *ctx,
>>>
>>> void bpf_jit_build_prologue(struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>>> {
>>> - int stack_adjust = 0, store_offset, bpf_stack_adjust;
>>> + int i, stack_adjust = 0, store_offset, bpf_stack_adjust;
>>> bool is_main_prog = ctx->prog->aux->func_idx == 0;
>>
>> This line magically appeared, and makes it hard to apply the series
>> without hacking the patches manually. Going forward, please supply a
>> base tree commit to the series (or a link to a complete git tree).
>>
>
> A rebase version has been resend as follow:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20221220021319.1655871-1-pulehui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Yes, but with the same issue:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20221220021319.1655871-4-pulehui@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
The "is_main_prog" line is still around in the resend.
Björn
