mbox series

[bpf-next,v2,0/4] btf_dump fixes for s390

Message ID 20211013160902.428340-1-iii@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series btf_dump fixes for s390 | expand

Message

Ilya Leoshkevich Oct. 13, 2021, 4:08 p.m. UTC 
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211012023218.399568-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/
v1 -> v2:
- Remove redundant local variables, use t->size directly instead.
- Add btf__align_of() patch.
Pending questions:
- Can things like defined(__i386__) break cross-compilation?
- Why exactly do we need both cpu_number and cpu_profile_flip? If we do,
  is there a suitable replacement for cpu_number in common code?

---

Hi,

This series along with [1] and [2] fixes all the failures in the
btf_dump testsuite currently present on s390, in particular:

* [1] fixes intermittent build bug causing "failed to encode tag ..."
  * error messages.
* [2] fixes missing VAR entries on s390.
* Patch 1 disables Intel-specific code in a testcase.
* Patch 2 fixes an endianness-related bug.
* Patch 3 fixes an alignment-related bug.
* Patch 4 improves overly pessimistic alignment handling.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211012022521.399302-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211012022637.399365-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/

Best regards,
Ilya

Ilya Leoshkevich (4):
  selftests/bpf: Use cpu_number only on arches that have it
  libbpf: Fix dumping big-endian bitfields
  libbpf: Fix dumping non-aligned __int128
  libbpf: Fix ptr_is_aligned() usages

 tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c                      | 34 +++++++++----------
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c       |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

Comments

Andrii Nakryiko Oct. 20, 2021, 6:48 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:09 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211012023218.399568-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/
> v1 -> v2:
> - Remove redundant local variables, use t->size directly instead.
> - Add btf__align_of() patch.
> Pending questions:
> - Can things like defined(__i386__) break cross-compilation?
> - Why exactly do we need both cpu_number and cpu_profile_flip? If we do,
>   is there a suitable replacement for cpu_number in common code?
>
> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> This series along with [1] and [2] fixes all the failures in the
> btf_dump testsuite currently present on s390, in particular:
>
> * [1] fixes intermittent build bug causing "failed to encode tag ..."
>   * error messages.
> * [2] fixes missing VAR entries on s390.
> * Patch 1 disables Intel-specific code in a testcase.
> * Patch 2 fixes an endianness-related bug.
> * Patch 3 fixes an alignment-related bug.
> * Patch 4 improves overly pessimistic alignment handling.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211012022521.399302-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211012022637.399365-1-iii@linux.ibm.com/
>
> Best regards,
> Ilya
>
> Ilya Leoshkevich (4):
>   selftests/bpf: Use cpu_number only on arches that have it
>   libbpf: Fix dumping big-endian bitfields
>   libbpf: Fix dumping non-aligned __int128
>   libbpf: Fix ptr_is_aligned() usages
>
>  tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c                      | 34 +++++++++----------
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c       |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.31.1
>

I've dropped patch 4 for now, applied the first three to bpf-next, thanks.