[...]
> > +/* Dumps C language definition or forward declaration for type **id**:
> > + * - returns 1 if type is printable;
> > + * - returns 0 if type is non-printable.
>
> does it also return <0 on error?
Right
>
> > + */
>
> let's follow the format of doc comments, see other APIs. There is
> @brief, @param, @return and so on.
Will do
> pw-bot: cr
>
>
> > +LIBBPF_API int btf_dump__dump_one_type(struct btf_dump *d, __u32 id, bool fwd);
>
> not a fan of a name, how about we do `btf_dump__emit_type(struct
> btf_dump *d, __u32 id, struct btf_dump_emit_type_opts *opts)` and have
> forward declaration flag as options? We have
> btf_dump__emit_type_decl(), this one could be called
> btf_dump__emit_type_def() as well. WDYT?
`btf_dump__emit_type_def` seems good and I can make it accept options
with forward as a flag.
However, in such a case the following is also a contender:
struct btf_dump_type_opts {
__u32 sz;
bool skip_deps; /* flags picked so that by default */
bool forward_only; /* the behavior matches non-opts variant */
};
LIBBPF_API int btf_dump__dump_type_opts(struct btf_dump *d, __u32 id,
struct btf_dump_type_opts *opts);
I find this contender more ugly but a bit more consistent.
Wdyt?
[...]
