On 2015/12/14 11:57AM, Wang Nan wrote: > Support basic PowerPC compiling. > > Checks BPF syscall number, turn off libbpf building on platform doesn't > support sys_bpf instead of blocking compiling. > > Reported-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangn...@huawei.com> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@kernel.org> > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> > Cc: Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> > Cc: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <suka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > > v1 -> v2: __powerpc64__ -> __powerpc__. Code is from > ./tools/perf/perf-sys.h, but not tested yet. > > Naveen, please help me try this patch on PPC.
Thanks, this works. However... > > Thank you. > > --- > tools/build/feature/test-bpf.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 6 ++++-- > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/build/feature/test-bpf.c b/tools/build/feature/test-bpf.c > index 062bac8..19497f7 100644 > --- a/tools/build/feature/test-bpf.c > +++ b/tools/build/feature/test-bpf.c > @@ -1,9 +1,26 @@ > +#include <asm/unistd.h> > #include <linux/bpf.h> > +#include <unistd.h> > + > +#ifndef __NR_bpf > +# if defined(__i386__) > +# define __NR_bpf 357 > +# elif defined(__x86_64__) > +# define __NR_bpf 321 > +# elif defined(__aarch64__) > +# define __NR_bpf 280 > +# elif defined(__powerpc__) > +# define __NR_bpf 361 I think we should drop __aarch64__ and __powerpc__ here since this builds fine on ppc without these hunks. > +# else > +# error __NR_bpf not defined. libbpf does not support your arch. > +# endif > +#endif > > int main(void) > { > union bpf_attr attr; > > + /* Check fields in attr */ > attr.prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE; > attr.insn_cnt = 0; > attr.insns = 0; > @@ -14,5 +31,9 @@ int main(void) > attr.kern_version = 0; > > attr = attr; > - return 0; > + /* > + * Test existance of __NR_bpf and BPF_PROG_LOAD. Nit... 'for existence'. > + * This call should fail if we run the testcase. > + */ > + return syscall(__NR_bpf, BPF_PROG_LOAD, attr, sizeof(attr)); > } > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > index 5bdc6ea..fd25c58 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c > @@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ > #include "bpf.h" > > /* > - * When building perf, unistd.h is override. Define __NR_bpf is > - * required to be defined. > + * When building perf, unistd.h is overrided. __NR_bpf is > + * required to be defined explicitly. > */ > #ifndef __NR_bpf > # if defined(__i386__) > @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ > # define __NR_bpf 321 > # elif defined(__aarch64__) > # define __NR_bpf 280 > +# elif defined(__powerpc__) > +# define __NR_bpf 361 And, I think we should drop this hunk, but include the patch I sent. That ensures that the proper headers from the kernel source tree are included, so there won't be a need to explicitly define __NR_bpf for each architecture. Regards, Naveen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/