On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:56 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? :) I'm all for it, probably both `make cscope` and `make tags`, like Linux's make has? Feel free to add them, I can also replicate it to Github's Makefile after that. > > -Toke >
