Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:54:05 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 04/07/2015 06:18 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On 4/7/15 4:13 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >> [ Cc'ing Dave, fyi ]
> >>
> >> On 04/07/2015 11:05 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:56:13 +0200 Daniel Borkmann
> >>> <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 04/07/2015 10:48 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>>> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> >>>>>> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> kernel/events/core.c: In function 'perf_event_set_bpf_prog':
> >>>>>> kernel/events/core.c:6732:15: error: 'struct bpf_prog_aux' has no
> >>>>>> member named 'prog_type'
> >>>>>>     if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> >>>>>>                  ^
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Caused by commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs
> >>>>>> attached to kprobes").
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note, this must be some (rarely triggered) aspect of the ppc64
> >>>>> defconfig that neither x86 randconfigs nor most other arch defconfigs
> >>>>> expose?
> >>>>
> >>>> Note, this is a merge conflict with the work that went via net-next
> >>>> tree,
> >>>> i.e. 24701ecea76b ("ebpf: move read-only fields to bpf_prog and shrink
> >>>> bpf_prog_aux"). I believe that is why it didn't trigger on tip tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> You should be able to resolve it in linux-next by changing the test to:
> >>>>
> >>>>     if (prog->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Daniel, I will do that tomorrow.  Someone will have to remember
> >>> to tell Linus.
> >>
> >> Yes, indeed, depending which tree is merged first.
> >
> > Daniel analysis is correct, but the fix for kernel/events/core.c
> > should be:
> > - if (prog->aux->prog_type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> > + if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE) {
> > instead of 'prog->prog_type'
> 
> Yes, absolutely, thanks!

So I have applied that as a merge fix patch.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgpcT1GwuiIKQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature