[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180515075723.658e19fd@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 07:57:23 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree
Hi Jakub,
On Mon, 14 May 2018 13:41:40 -0700 Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:57:00 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > diff --cc tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > index 8da4eeb101a6,df54c4c9e48a..000000000000
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > @@@ -2163,9 -2193,12 +2193,12 @@@ int bpf_prog_load_xattr(const struct bp
> >
> > if (!attr)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > + if (!attr->file)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - obj = bpf_object__open(attr->file);
> > + obj = __bpf_object__open(attr->file, NULL, 0,
> > + bpf_prog_type__needs_kver(attr->prog_type));
> > - if (IS_ERR(obj))
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(obj))
> > return -ENOENT;
>
> This is okay, thanks. The OR_NULL is unnecessary just using the
> bpf-next code is a better merge IMO.
Thanks, I have updated my merge resolution from today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists