On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 7:25 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This macro pair is functionally equivalent to BTF_SET8_START/END, except
> with BTF_SET8_KFUNCS flag set in the btf_id_set8 flags field. The next
> commit will codemod all kfunc set8s to this new variant such that all
> kfuncs are tagged as such in .BTF_ids section.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/btf_ids.h | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/btf_ids.h b/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> index dca09b7f21dc..0fe4f1cd1918 100644
> --- a/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> +++ b/include/linux/btf_ids.h
> @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ struct btf_id_set {
> u32 ids[];
> };
>
> +/* This flag implies BTF_SET8 holds kfunc(s) */
> +#define BTF_SET8_KFUNCS (1 << 0)
Nit: could this be an enum so that the flag is discoverable via BTF?
Also, isn't this UAPI if pahole interprets this flag?
