Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 2/5] libbpf: Refactor bpf_program_attach_fd()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 3/8/24 5:02 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:22 PM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Refactor function bpf_program_attach_fd() to provide a helper function
which has attach_type as one of input parameters. This will make later
libbpf change easier to understand.

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
index 6c2979f1b471..97b573516675 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
@@ -12151,11 +12151,10 @@ static int attach_lsm(const struct bpf_program *prog, long cookie, struct bpf_li
  }

  static struct bpf_link *
-bpf_program_attach_fd(const struct bpf_program *prog,
-                     int target_fd, const char *target_name,
-                     const struct bpf_link_create_opts *opts)
+__bpf_program_attach_fd(const struct bpf_program *prog, int target_fd,
I hope we won't need this patch at all (see my comment on later
patch), but if we do need to do this refactoring then a) let's not
used underscore-prefixed names, this is not a common practice in
libbpf code base and b) I think we can just update all callers of
bpf_program_attach_fd() to pass attach_type directly, there are just 6
of them.

I thought about this 'update all callers of bpf_program_attach_fd
' but did not do that since it needs to update all callers. But since
you suggest this I certainly can do this.


+                       enum bpf_attach_type attach_type, const char *target_name,
+                       const struct bpf_link_create_opts *opts)
  {
-       enum bpf_attach_type attach_type;
         char errmsg[STRERR_BUFSIZE];
         struct bpf_link *link;
         int prog_fd, link_fd;
@@ -12171,7 +12170,6 @@ bpf_program_attach_fd(const struct bpf_program *prog,
                 return libbpf_err_ptr(-ENOMEM);
         link->detach = &bpf_link__detach_fd;

-       attach_type = bpf_program__expected_attach_type(prog);
         link_fd = bpf_link_create(prog_fd, target_fd, attach_type, opts);
         if (link_fd < 0) {
                 link_fd = -errno;
@@ -12185,6 +12183,16 @@ bpf_program_attach_fd(const struct bpf_program *prog,
         return link;
  }

+static struct bpf_link *
+bpf_program_attach_fd(const struct bpf_program *prog,
+                     int target_fd, const char *target_name,
+                     const struct bpf_link_create_opts *opts)
+{
+       return __bpf_program_attach_fd(prog, target_fd,
+                                      bpf_program__expected_attach_type(prog),
+                                      target_name, opts);
+}
+
  struct bpf_link *
  bpf_program__attach_cgroup(const struct bpf_program *prog, int cgroup_fd)
  {
--
2.43.0





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux