[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1ade365ced7051f2e18803d182ebe14c61b18309.1717881178.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:16:01 -0600
From: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
To: shuah@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net,
andrii@...nel.org,
eddyz87@...il.com,
ast@...nel.org,
olsajiri@...il.com,
quentin@...valent.com,
alan.maguire@...cle.com,
acme@...nel.org
Cc: martin.lau@...ux.dev,
song@...nel.org,
yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
john.fastabend@...il.com,
kpsingh@...nel.org,
sdf@...gle.com,
haoluo@...gle.com,
jolsa@...nel.org,
mykolal@...com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/12] bpf: selftests: Fix bpf_map_sum_elem_count() kfunc prototype
The prototype in progs/map_percpu_stats.c is not in line with how the
actual kfuncs are defined in kernel/bpf/map_iter.c. This causes
compilation errors when kfunc prototypes are generated from BTF.
Fix by aligning with actual kfunc definitions.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_percpu_stats.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_percpu_stats.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_percpu_stats.c
index 10b2325c1720..63245785eb69 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_percpu_stats.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_percpu_stats.c
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
__u32 target_id;
-__s64 bpf_map_sum_elem_count(struct bpf_map *map) __ksym;
+__s64 bpf_map_sum_elem_count(const struct bpf_map *map) __ksym;
SEC("iter/bpf_map")
int dump_bpf_map(struct bpf_iter__bpf_map *ctx)
--
2.44.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists