diff --git a/ci/diffs/0001-selftests-bpf-xskxceiver-ksft_print_msg-fix-format-t.patch b/ci/diffs/0001-selftests-bpf-xskxceiver-ksft_print_msg-fix-format-t.patch new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e631fac0 --- /dev/null +++ b/ci/diffs/0001-selftests-bpf-xskxceiver-ksft_print_msg-fix-format-t.patch @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +From fe69a1b1b6ed9ffc2c578c63f526026a8ab74f0c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Anders Roxell +Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 18:43:28 +0100 +Subject: [PATCH] selftests: bpf: xskxceiver: ksft_print_msg: fix format type + error + +Crossbuilding selftests/bpf for architecture arm64, format specifies +type error show up like. + +xskxceiver.c:912:34: error: format specifies type 'int' but the argument +has type '__u64' (aka 'unsigned long long') [-Werror,-Wformat] + ksft_print_msg("[%s] expected meta_count [%d], got meta_count [%d]\n", + ~~ + %llu + __func__, pkt->pkt_nb, meta->count); + ^~~~~~~~~~~ +xskxceiver.c:929:55: error: format specifies type 'unsigned long long' but + the argument has type 'u64' (aka 'unsigned long') [-Werror,-Wformat] + ksft_print_msg("Frag invalid addr: %llx len: %u\n", addr, len); + ~~~~ ^~~~ + +Fixing the issues by casting to (unsigned long long) and changing the +specifiers to be %llu from %d and %u, since with u64s it might be %llx +or %lx, depending on architecture. + +Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell +Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231109174328.1774571-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org +Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov +--- + tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- + 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c +index 591ca9637b23..b604c570309a 100644 +--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c ++++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c +@@ -908,8 +908,9 @@ static bool is_metadata_correct(struct pkt *pkt, void *buffer, u64 addr) + struct xdp_info *meta = data - sizeof(struct xdp_info); + + if (meta->count != pkt->pkt_nb) { +- ksft_print_msg("[%s] expected meta_count [%d], got meta_count [%d]\n", +- __func__, pkt->pkt_nb, meta->count); ++ ksft_print_msg("[%s] expected meta_count [%d], got meta_count [%llu]\n", ++ __func__, pkt->pkt_nb, ++ (unsigned long long)meta->count); + return false; + } + +@@ -926,11 +927,13 @@ static bool is_frag_valid(struct xsk_umem_info *umem, u64 addr, u32 len, u32 exp + + if (addr >= umem->num_frames * umem->frame_size || + addr + len > umem->num_frames * umem->frame_size) { +- ksft_print_msg("Frag invalid addr: %llx len: %u\n", addr, len); ++ ksft_print_msg("Frag invalid addr: %llx len: %u\n", ++ (unsigned long long)addr, len); + return false; + } + if (!umem->unaligned_mode && addr % umem->frame_size + len > umem->frame_size) { +- ksft_print_msg("Frag crosses frame boundary addr: %llx len: %u\n", addr, len); ++ ksft_print_msg("Frag crosses frame boundary addr: %llx len: %u\n", ++ (unsigned long long)addr, len); + return false; + } + +@@ -1029,7 +1032,8 @@ static int complete_pkts(struct xsk_socket_info *xsk, int batch_size) + u64 addr = *xsk_ring_cons__comp_addr(&xsk->umem->cq, idx + rcvd - 1); + + ksft_print_msg("[%s] Too many packets completed\n", __func__); +- ksft_print_msg("Last completion address: %llx\n", addr); ++ ksft_print_msg("Last completion address: %llx\n", ++ (unsigned long long)addr); + return TEST_FAILURE; + } + +@@ -1513,8 +1517,9 @@ static int validate_tx_invalid_descs(struct ifobject *ifobject) + } + + if (stats.tx_invalid_descs != ifobject->xsk->pkt_stream->nb_pkts / 2) { +- ksft_print_msg("[%s] tx_invalid_descs incorrect. Got [%u] expected [%u]\n", +- __func__, stats.tx_invalid_descs, ++ ksft_print_msg("[%s] tx_invalid_descs incorrect. Got [%llu] expected [%u]\n", ++ __func__, ++ (unsigned long long)stats.tx_invalid_descs, + ifobject->xsk->pkt_stream->nb_pkts); + return TEST_FAILURE; + } +-- +2.34.1 +