[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180514134140.0c468174@cakuba>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 13:41:40 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
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
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists