Em Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:48:31PM -0800, Joe Stringer escreveu: > On 15 December 2016 at 14:00, Joe Stringer <j...@ovn.org> wrote: > > On 15 December 2016 at 10:34, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@kernel.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
