On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 8:35 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Joel Fernandes
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:20:49 -0700
>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>> The amount of hellish hacks we are adding to deal with this is getting
>>> way out of control.
>>
>> I agree with you th
From: Joel Fernandes
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:20:49 -0700
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> The amount of hellish hacks we are adding to deal with this is getting
>> way out of control.
>
> I agree with you that hellish hacks are being added which is why it
> keeps break
Hi Dave,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, David Miller wrote:
>
> Please, no.
Sorry you dislike it, I had intentionally marked it as RFC as its an
idea I was just toying with the idea and posted it early to get
feedback.
>
> The amount of hellish hacks we are adding to deal with this is getting
Please, no.
The amount of hellish hacks we are adding to deal with this is getting
way out of control.
BPF programs MUST have their own set of asm headers, this is the
only way to get around this issue in the long term.
I am also strongly against adding -static to the build.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> inline assembly has haunted building samples on arm64 for quite sometime.
> This patch uses the pre-processor to noop all occurences of inline asm when
> compiling the BPF sample for the BPF target.
>
> This patch reintroduces inclusion of as
inline assembly has haunted building samples on arm64 for quite sometime.
This patch uses the pre-processor to noop all occurences of inline asm when
compiling the BPF sample for the BPF target.
This patch reintroduces inclusion of asm/sysregs.h which needs to be included
to avoid compiler errors
