Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/11] bpf, arm64, powerpc: Change nospec to include v1 barrier

[Luis Gerhorst <luis.gerhorst@fau.de>]

kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> writes:

> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
>    arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c: In function 'bpf_jit_build_body':
>>> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c:814:4: error: a label can only be part of a statement and a declaration is not a statement
>      814 |    bool sync_emitted = false;
>          |    ^~~~
>>> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c:815:4: error: expected expression before 'bool'
>      815 |    bool ori31_emitted = false;
>          |    ^~~~
>>> arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c:833:6: error: 'ori31_emitted' undeclared (first use in this function)
>      833 |      ori31_emitted = true;
>          |      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    arch/powerpc/net/bpf_jit_comp64.c:833:6: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in

Fixed this for v3. For the other archs, the patches also don't add
declarations in a switch/case.

I also checked that there are no new W=2 warnings for the touched C
files on x86 with the vmtest bpf config.

I have not checked that all files that include a touched header don't
have new warnings. When doing -j $(nproc) the diff does not work and
with -j 1 it takes forever (e.g., because bpf.h is touched). If you
think this is required just let me know (and if you have a tip on how to
do it more quickly that would be great too).