[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161220134126.GF551@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:41:26 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Joe Stringer <joe@....org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
ast@...com, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH perf/core REBASE 2/5] samples/bpf: Switch over to libbpf
Em Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:48:31PM -0800, Joe Stringer escreveu:
> On 15 December 2016 at 14:00, Joe Stringer <joe@....org> wrote:
> > On 15 December 2016 at 10:34, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> So, I'm stopping here so that I can push what I have to Ingo, then I'll get
> >> back to this, hopefully by then you beat me and I have just to retest 8-)
> > OK, thanks for the report. Looks like there was another difference
> > between the two libbpfs - one used total program size for its
> > load_program API; the actual kernel API uses instruction count. This
> > incremental should do the trick:
> > https://github.com/joestringer/linux/commit/6ff7726f20077bed66fb725f5189c13690154b6a
> The full branch with this change (fast-forward from your tmp branch)
> is available here:
> https://github.com/joestringer/linux/tree/submit/libbpf_samples_v5
> I tried running every selftest and BPF sample I could get my hands on;
> there's one or two that I couldn't run, but seemed more to do with my
> versions of TC/iproute and kernel config rather than libbpf changes.
> Let me know if you see any further trouble.
Finally getting back to this, now after I figured out how to get patches
out of github (wget commit + .patch) I applied this and at least the
samples/bpf/offwaketime seems to work as before, applying.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists