On 01/26/2018 09:30 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On 26/01/2018 03:16, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 01:39:30AM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>> Do not build lib/bpf/bpf.o with this Makefile but use the one from the
>>> library directory. This avoid making a buggy bpf.o file (
On 26/01/2018 03:16, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 01:39:30AM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> Do not build lib/bpf/bpf.o with this Makefile but use the one from the
>> library directory. This avoid making a buggy bpf.o file (e.g. missing
>> symbols).
>
> could you provide a
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 01:39:30AM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Do not build lib/bpf/bpf.o with this Makefile but use the one from the
> library directory. This avoid making a buggy bpf.o file (e.g. missing
> symbols).
could you provide an example?
What symbols will be missing?
I don't think th
Do not build lib/bpf/bpf.o with this Makefile but use the one from the
library directory. This avoid making a buggy bpf.o file (e.g. missing
symbols).
This patch is useful if some code (e.g. Landlock tests) needs both the
bpf.o (from tools/lib/bpf) and the bpf_load.o (from samples/bpf).
Signed-o
