On 5/22/17, 20:08, "David Miller" <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
From: Teng Qin <qint...@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 00:39:34 +0000
> diff --git a/samples/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/samples/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> index 9a9c95f..a94ce42 100644
> --- a/samples/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> +++ b/samples/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> @@ -37,9 +37,8 @@ static int (*bpf_clone_redirect)(void *ctx, int
ifindex, int flags) =
> (void *) BPF_FUNC_clone_redirect;
> static int (*bpf_redirect)(int ifindex, int flags) =
> (void *) BPF_FUNC_redirect;
> -static int (*bpf_perf_event_output)(void *ctx, void *map,
> - unsigned long long flags, void *data,
> - int size) =
> +static int (*bpf_perf_event_output)(void *ctx, void *map, u64 flags,
> + void *data, int size) =
> (void *) BPF_FUNC_perf_event_output;
> static int (*bpf_get_stackid)(void *ctx, void *map, int flags) =
> (void *) BPF_FUNC_get_stackid;
I think we've been intentionally avoiding the use of "u64", "u32",
etc. in this file.
But what do I know.
Alexei said it was due to Clang not taking u64, u32 etc. for compilation.
I didn’t know the context and just used them. But apparently, something
changed and now they build and run OK......
