| Message ID | tencent_9E0636426959DE97692A50AF79A3D9888B08@qq.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf-next] samples: bpf: Add macro SYSCALL() for aarch64 | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for bpf-next |
| netdev/apply | fail | Patch does not apply to bpf-next |
On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:34 AM Rong Tao <rtoax@foxmail.com> wrote: > > From: Rong Tao <rongtao@cestc.cn> > > kernel arm64/kernel/sys.c macro __SYSCALL() adds a prefix __arm64_, we > should support it for aarch64. The following is the output of the bpftrace > script: > > $ sudo bpftrace -l | grep sys_write > ... > kprobe:__arm64_sys_write > kprobe:__arm64_sys_writev > ... > > Signed-off-by: Rong Tao <rongtao@cestc.cn> > --- samples were converted to SEC("ksyscall") programs and BPF_KSYSCALL() macro, there is not even samples/bpf/trace_common.h there. Please check the latest bpf-next/master. > samples/bpf/trace_common.h | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/samples/bpf/trace_common.h b/samples/bpf/trace_common.h > index 8cb5400aed1f..fafc699af0a3 100644 > --- a/samples/bpf/trace_common.h > +++ b/samples/bpf/trace_common.h > @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ > #define SYSCALL(SYS) "__x64_" __stringify(SYS) > #elif defined(__s390x__) > #define SYSCALL(SYS) "__s390x_" __stringify(SYS) > +#elif defined(__aarch64__) > +#define SYSCALL(SYS) "__arm64_" __stringify(SYS) > #else > #define SYSCALL(SYS) __stringify(SYS) > #endif > -- > 2.39.1 >
diff --git a/samples/bpf/trace_common.h b/samples/bpf/trace_common.h index 8cb5400aed1f..fafc699af0a3 100644 --- a/samples/bpf/trace_common.h +++ b/samples/bpf/trace_common.h @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ #define SYSCALL(SYS) "__x64_" __stringify(SYS) #elif defined(__s390x__) #define SYSCALL(SYS) "__s390x_" __stringify(SYS) +#elif defined(__aarch64__) +#define SYSCALL(SYS) "__arm64_" __stringify(SYS) #else #define SYSCALL(SYS) __stringify(SYS) #endif