diff mbox series

bpf_helpers.h: define bpf_tail_call_static when building with GCC

Message ID 20240123185945.16005-1-jose.marchesi@oracle.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpf_helpers.h: define bpf_tail_call_static when building with GCC | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Not a local patch
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat / veristat on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-42 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-39 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_cpuv4, false, 360) / test_progs_cpuv4 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-40 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-41 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on s390x with gcc

Commit Message

Jose E. Marchesi Jan. 23, 2024, 6:59 p.m. UTC 
The definition of bpf_tail_call_static in tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
is guarded by a preprocessor check to assure that clang is recent
enough to support it.  This patch updates the guard so the function is
compiled when using GCC as well.

Tested in bpf-next master.
No regressions.

Signed-off-by: Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>
Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@meta.com>
Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: david.faust@oracle.com
Cc: cupertino.miranda@oracle.com
---
 tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Yonghong Song Jan. 23, 2024, 9:19 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 1/23/24 10:59 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> The definition of bpf_tail_call_static in tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> is guarded by a preprocessor check to assure that clang is recent
> enough to support it.  This patch updates the guard so the function is
> compiled when using GCC as well.
>
> Tested in bpf-next master.
> No regressions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>
> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@meta.com>
> Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> Cc: david.faust@oracle.com
> Cc: cupertino.miranda@oracle.com
> ---
>   tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> index 2324cc42b017..3306f50c5081 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
>   /*
>    * Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
>    */
> -#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
> +#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)

Do you want to guard with a gcc version as well here or you assume any gcc which supports bpf
should be okay here?

>   static __always_inline void
>   bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
>   {
Jose E. Marchesi Jan. 24, 2024, 8:24 a.m. UTC | #2 
> On 1/23/24 10:59 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>> The definition of bpf_tail_call_static in tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>> is guarded by a preprocessor check to assure that clang is recent
>> enough to support it.  This patch updates the guard so the function is
>> compiled when using GCC as well.
>>
>> Tested in bpf-next master.
>> No regressions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>
>> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@meta.com>
>> Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
>> Cc: david.faust@oracle.com
>> Cc: cupertino.miranda@oracle.com
>> ---
>>   tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>> index 2324cc42b017..3306f50c5081 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
>> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
>>   /*
>>    * Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
>>    */
>> -#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
>> +#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)
>
> Do you want to guard with a gcc version as well here or you assume any gcc which supports bpf
> should be okay here?

The second, because GCC versions that do not support
bpf_tail_call_static are not capable of building the selftests for many
other reasons, so there is little point to support them.

>
>>   static __always_inline void
>>   bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
>>   {
Andrii Nakryiko Jan. 24, 2024, 5:43 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:25 AM Jose E. Marchesi
<jose.marchesi@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On 1/23/24 10:59 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> >> The definition of bpf_tail_call_static in tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> >> is guarded by a preprocessor check to assure that clang is recent
> >> enough to support it.  This patch updates the guard so the function is
> >> compiled when using GCC as well.
> >>
> >> Tested in bpf-next master.
> >> No regressions.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi@oracle.com>
> >> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@meta.com>
> >> Cc: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: david.faust@oracle.com
> >> Cc: cupertino.miranda@oracle.com
> >> ---
> >>   tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h | 2 +-
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> >> index 2324cc42b017..3306f50c5081 100644
> >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
> >> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
> >>   /*
> >>    * Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
> >>    */
> >> -#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
> >> +#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)
> >
> > Do you want to guard with a gcc version as well here or you assume any gcc which supports bpf
> > should be okay here?
>
> The second, because GCC versions that do not support
> bpf_tail_call_static are not capable of building the selftests for many
> other reasons, so there is little point to support them.

bpf_helpers.h is part of libbpf-provided API, and so it's going to be
used way beyond just BPF selftests. So I think it's prudent to guard
with version check just like we do it for clang. I assume you do know
GCC version that is meant to support this?

>
> >
> >>   static __always_inline void
> >>   bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
> >>   {
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
index 2324cc42b017..3306f50c5081 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_helpers.h
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ 
 /*
  * Helper function to perform a tail call with a constant/immediate map slot.
  */
-#if __clang_major__ >= 8 && defined(__bpf__)
+#if (!defined(__clang__) || __clang_major__ >= 8) && defined(__bpf__)
 static __always_inline void
 bpf_tail_call_static(void *ctx, const void *map, const __u32 slot)
 {