[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3045141f-298c-59ae-41a7-d8bc79048786@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:53:35 +0000
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Martin Lau <kafai@...com>
CC: "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf: Add test for SO_REUSEPORT_DETACH_BPF
On 6/12/19 2:47 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>>> CFLAGS += -Wall -O2 -I$(APIDIR) -I$(LIBDIR) -I$(BPFDIR) -I$(GENDIR) $(GENFLAGS) -I../../../include \
>>>> + -I../../../../usr/include/ \
>>> Why not copy inlude/uapi/asm-generic/socket.h into tools/include
>>> instead? Will that work?
>> Sure. I am ok with copy. I don't think we need to sync very often.
>> Do you know how to do that considering multiple arch's socket.h
>> have been changed in Patch 1?
> No, I don't know how to handle arch specific stuff. I suggest to copy
> asm-generic and have ifdefs in the tests if someone complains:-)
>
>> Is copy better?
> Doesn't ../../../../usr/include provide the same headers we have in
> tools/include/uapi? If you add -I../../../../usr/include, then is there
> a point of having copies under tools/include/uapi? I don't really
> know why we keep the copies under tools/include/uapi rather than including
> ../../../usr/include directly.
for out-of-src builds ../../../../usr/include/ directory doesn't exist.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists