Hi Eric,
During testing this patch I find a segfault, please see inline comment.
In addition, since both the BPF map array and map names should be done
after symbol table is collected, merging bpf_object__init_maps and
bpf_object__init_maps_name would be a good practice, making code
simpler.
So
Hi,
On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 02:23 +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Are you still working in this patch set?
Sorry to lag on this, I've been taken by a series of other projects. I
did not yet reworked it yet but I was planning to do a bit on it this
week.
>
> Now I know why maps section i
Hi Eric,
Are you still working in this patch set?
Now I know why maps section is not a simple array
from a patch set from Joe Stringer:
https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg135088.html
So I think this patch is really useful.
Are you going to resend the whole patch set? If no
On 2016/10/17 5:18, Eric Leblond wrote:
It is not correct to assimilate the elf data of the maps section
to an array of map definition. In fact the sizes differ. The
offset provided in the symbol section has to be used instead.
This patch fixes a bug causing a elf with two maps not to load
cor
It is not correct to assimilate the elf data of the maps section
to an array of map definition. In fact the sizes differ. The
offset provided in the symbol section has to be used instead.
This patch fixes a bug causing a elf with two maps not to load
correctly.
Signed-off-by: Eric Leblond
---
t
