On 11/6/19 1:58 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > 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. Sorry, forgot to do. Will remember next time.
