Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Sure, LGTM! Should we still keep the bit where it expands _opts in the >> struct name as part of the macro, or does that become too obtuse? > > For me it's a question of code navigation. When I'll have a code > > LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open, <whatever>); > > I'll want to jump to the definition of "bpf_object_open" (e.g., w/ > cscope)... and will find nothing, because it's actually > bpf_object_open_opts. So I prefer user to spell it out exactly and in > full, this is more maintainable in the long run, IMO. That's a good point; we shouldn't break cscope! BTW, speaking of cscope, how about having a 'make cscope' target for libbpf to generate the definition file? :) -Toke
