Em Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 12:48:12PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer escreveu:
> I recently fixed up a lot of commits that forgot to keep the tooling
> headers in sync. And then I forgot to do the same thing in commit
> cb5f7334d479 ("bpf: add comments to BPF ld/ldx sizes"). Let correct
> that before people notice ;-).
>
> Lawrence did partly fix/sync this for bpf.h in commit d6d4f60c3a09
> ("bpf: add selftest for tcpbpf").
>
> Fixes: cb5f7334d479 ("bpf: add comments to BPF ld/ldx sizes")
We don't consider a bug to forget to update the tooling headers copy of
the files, i.e. its not a strict requirement on kernel developers to
care about tools/ :-)
I, for one, like to get the warning, its an opportunity for me to see
that something changed and that I should pay attention to see if
something needs to be done in the tooling side.
- Arnaldo
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> index 18be90725ab0..ee97668bdadb 100644
> --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf_common.h
> @@ -15,9 +15,10 @@
>
> /* ld/ldx fields */
> #define BPF_SIZE(code) ((code) & 0x18)
> -#define BPF_W 0x00
> -#define BPF_H 0x08
> -#define BPF_B 0x10
> +#define BPF_W 0x00 /* 32-bit */
> +#define BPF_H 0x08 /* 16-bit */
> +#define BPF_B 0x10 /* 8-bit */
> +/* eBPF BPF_DW 0x18 64-bit */
> #define BPF_MODE(code) ((code) & 0xe0)
> #define BPF_IMM 0x00
> #define BPF_ABS 0x20
