On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:21 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 11/6/19 12:15 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > Streamline BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD_PROBED interface to follow > > BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD (direct) and BPF_CORE_READ, in general, i.e., just > > return read result or 0, if underlying bpf_probe_read() failed. > > > > In practice, real applications rarely check bpf_probe_read() result, because > > it has to always work or otherwise it's a bug. So propagating internal > > bpf_probe_read() error from this macro hurts usability without providing real > > benefits in practice. This patch fixes the issue and simplifies usage, > > noticeable even in selftest itself. > > Agreed. This will be consistent with direct read where > returning value will be 0 if any fault happens. > > In really rare cases, if user want to distinguish good value 0 from > bpf_probe_read() returning error, all building macros are in the header > file, user can have a custom solution. But let us have API work > for common use case with good usability. > > > > > Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> Applied. Thanks Yonghong, please trim your replies.
