lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v12 02/10] btf: Handle dynamic pointer parameter in kfuncs
    On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 05:34:57PM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
    > On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 17:43 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 08:46:14AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:16:14PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
    > > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 9:54 PM Jarkko Sakkinen <
    > > > > jarkko@kernel.org> wrote:
    > > > > > > -static bool is_dynptr_reg_valid_init(struct bpf_verifier_env
    > > > > > > *env, struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
    > > > > > > - enum bpf_arg_type
    > > > > > > arg_type)
    > > > > > > +bool is_dynptr_reg_valid_init(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
    > > > > > > struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
    > > > > > > + enum bpf_arg_type arg_type)
    > > > > > > {
    > > > > > > struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, reg);
    > > > > > > int spi = get_spi(reg->off);
    > > > > > > --
    > > > > > > 2.25.1
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Might be niticking but generally I'd consider splitting
    > > > > > exports as commits of their own.
    > > > >
    > > > > -static bool
    > > > > +bool
    > > > >
    > > > > into a separate commit?
    > > > >
    > > > > I guess it makes sense for people whose salary depends on
    > > > > number of commits.
    > > > > We don't play these games.
    > > >
    > > > What kind of argument is that anyway.
    > >
    > > "Separate each *logical change* into a separate patch." [*]
    >
    > The logical change, as per the patch subject, is allowing the
    > possibility of including eBPF dynamic pointers in a kfunc definition.
    > It requires to call an existing function that was already defined
    > elsewhere.
    >
    > Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see only exporting a function definition
    > to an include file as a logical change. To me, the changes in this
    > patch are clearly connected. Or even better, they tell why the function
    > definition has been exported, that would not appear if moving the
    > function definition is a standalone patch.
    >
    > >
    > > To add, generally any user space visible space should be an
    > > isolated patch.
    >
    > As far as I understood, definitions visible to user space should be in
    > include/uapi.

    It does change e.g. the output of kallsyms.

    It's not ABI but it's still user space visble.

    >
    > >
    > > Please, stop posting nonsense.
    >
    > If I may, saying this does not encourage people to try to submit their
    > code. I feel it is a bit strong, and I kindly ask you to express your
    > opinion in a more gentle way.

    I agree. That's why I was wondering what is this nonsense
    about salary and games.

    BR, Jarkko

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-08-26 18:33    [W:5.006 / U:0.368 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site