[Buildroot] [PATCH v4 1/1] package/bpftool: revert bpf_cookie patch to allow building

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 10/02/2023 10:17, Shahab Vahedi wrote:
> On 2/9/23 21:27, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>>
>> On 09/02/2023 13:23, Shahab Vahedi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/8/23 17:36, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear to me why you did a revert of the cookie feature rather than
>>>> using those patches. I think the first two or three should be sufficient to
>>>> fix your issue?
>>>
>>> Ideally, the correct way would be applying that pending series. But since
>>> there were comments that some of the patches might need reworking [1], I did
>>
>>   I don't see anything in that thread about rework being needed, only some
>>   complaints about some mail gateway encrypting messages so they can't be
>>   read by some recipients...
> See this [1] and the response here [2]. Having read it again, apparently it is

  Ah, but I guessed that that patch was not relevant for the issue you are 
facing. I had the impression only the first two or three patches of the series 
are relevant.

> not such a big deal. Alexander, the author, mentioned that he will redo that
> part in v3 of the patch the way David suggested. So either, I can make that
> change when submitting to Buildroot, or take it as it is. Your call.
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m42db58567febf12040f6ba0478e1a6148c284c55
> 
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220421003152.339542-3-alobakin@pm.me/T/#m293896646128262621c83e8c15c4d977f92ad0d2
> 
>>> not feel confident to add them. Therefore, I tried to keep my solution minimal
>>> and solve it by eliminating the problem. I know, it is not appealing.
>>
>>   The problem with your patch is that it is very difficult to decide if it
>>   should be kept or not when bumping the version. Plus, some people (or other
>>   packages) may rely on the feature that you remove.
> 
> I can try to apply that patch series on top of bpftool-v7.1.0-br1.tar.gz in
> buildroot. If it can be done fairly easily, I will submit it on a different
> thread.

  Thanks!

  Regards,
  Arnout