On 2023/1/3 16:21, Björn Töpel wrote:
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.
Oops, something was left when debugging mixing bpf2bpf and tailcalls.
Sorry, will send v2.
Björn
