On 11/1/23 5:59 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
On 11/1/23 17:17, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 10/31/23 5:19 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
On 10/31/23 17:02, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 10/31/23 4:34 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/btf.h b/include/linux/btf.h
index a8813605f2f6..954536431e0b 100644
--- a/include/linux/btf.h
+++ b/include/linux/btf.h
@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
#include <uapi/linux/bpf.h>
#define BTF_TYPE_EMIT(type) ((void)(type *)0)
+#define BTF_STRUCT_OPS_TYPE_EMIT(type) {((void)(struct type *)0); \
((void)(struct type *)0); is new. Why is it needed?
This is a trick of BTF to force compiler generate type info for
the given type. Without trick, compiler may skip these types if these
type are not used at all in the module. For example, modules usually
don't use value types of struct_ops directly.
It is not the value type and value type emit is understood. It is the
struct_ops type itself and it is new addition in this patchset afaict. The
value type emit is in the next line which was cut out from the context here.
I mean both of them are required.
In the case of a dummy implementation, struct_ops type itself properly never
being used, only being declared by the module. Without this line,
Other than bpf_dummy_ops, after reg(), the struct_ops->func() must be used
somewhere in the kernel or module. Like tcp must be using the
tcp_congestion_ops after reg(). bpf_dummy_ops is very special and probably
should be moved out to bpf_testmod somehow but this is for later. Even
bpf_dummy_ops does not have an issue now. Why it is needed after the kmod
support change?
or it is a preemptive addition to be future proof only?
Addition is fine if it is required to work. I am trying to understand why this
new addition is needed after the kmod support change. The reason why this is
needed after the kmod support change is not obvious from looking at the code.
The commit message didn't mention why and what broke after this kmod change.
If someone wants to clean it up a few months later, we will need to figure out
why it was added in the first place.
It is a future proof.
What do you think if I add a comment in the code?
If it is not required to work, I prefer not adding it to avoid confusion and
avoid future cleanup temptation. Even the artificial bpf_dummy_ops does not need
it, so not enough reason to introduce this code redundancy.
Switch topic.
While we are on a new macro topic, I think a new macro will be useful to emit
the value type and register_bpf_struct_ops together. wdyt?
the module developer will fail to load a struct_ops map of the dummy
type. This line is added to avoid this awful situation.
