Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 May 2015 19:47:01 +0800 | From | "Wangnan (F)" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v3 30/37] perf bpf: Add bpf-loader and open ELF object files |
| |
On 2015/5/23 1:24, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:56:55AM +0000, Wang Nan wrote: > > SNIP > >> +#define DEFINE_PRINT_FN(name, level) \ >> +static int libbpf_##name(const char *fmt, ...) \ >> +{ \ >> + va_list args; \ >> + int ret; \ >> + \ >> + va_start(args, fmt); \ >> + ret = veprintf(level, verbose, pr_fmt(fmt), args);\ >> + va_end(args); \ >> + return ret; \ >> +} >> + >> +DEFINE_PRINT_FN(warning, 0) >> +DEFINE_PRINT_FN(info, 0) >> +DEFINE_PRINT_FN(debug, 1) >> + >> +static bool libbpf_inited = false; >> + >> +#define MAX_OBJECTS 128 >> + >> +struct { >> + struct bpf_object *objects[MAX_OBJECTS]; >> + size_t nr_objects; >> +} params; > apart from that we dont like this kind of static stuff, this seems like > nice case for having simple handler like 'struct bpf_objects' carrying > the above data.. what do I miss?
I want to avoid fragmented memory allocation for storing bpf_object pointers. Storing them together into an array can make code simpler. I think I can made something like 'struct bpf_object *bpf_next_object(obj)' in libbpf so we can iterate over each loaded bpf objects, then this array and nr_objects can be hidden.
> also params should actually be static right? > > jirka
| |