On 08/02/2017 20:46, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 03:17:43PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
>> On 2/7/17 1:44 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>> - union bpf_attr attr;
>>> + union bpf_attr attr = {};
>>>
>>> - bzero(&attr, sizeof(attr));
>>
>> I think somebody me
Em Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 03:17:43PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
> On 2/7/17 1:44 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >-union bpf_attr attr;
> >+union bpf_attr attr = {};
> >
> >-bzero(&attr, sizeof(attr));
>
> I think somebody mentioned that there are compilers out there
> that don't do
Em Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 03:17:43PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
> On 2/7/17 1:44 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >-union bpf_attr attr;
> >+union bpf_attr attr = {};
> >
> >-bzero(&attr, sizeof(attr));
> I think somebody mentioned that there are compilers out there
> that don't do
On 2/7/17 1:44 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
- union bpf_attr attr;
+ union bpf_attr attr = {};
- bzero(&attr, sizeof(attr));
I think somebody mentioned that there are compilers out there
that don't do it correctly, hence it was done with explicit bzero.
Arnaldo, Wang, do you rem
Replace bpf_prog_load() with bpf_load_program() calls.
Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Daniel Borkmann
Cc: Shuah Khan
---
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 9 -
tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 4 ++--
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Mak
