On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:14:13AM +0100, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
> 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?
Sure, makes sense.
> Also, isn't this UAPI if pahole interprets this flag?
Not sure. I guess it'd fall under same category as any of the structs
the kernel lays out in .BTF_ids, like `struct btf_id_set8`. IMO it's
not, as that's kinda confusing to call anything in ELF uapi. Eg I don't
think people would consider layout of `.data..percpu` section uapi.
Thanks,
Daniel
