On Tue, 2024-05-28 at 16:19 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
> > > > +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?
>
> You'll also need "skip_semicolon" which makes this even uglier. Which
> is why I'd not do it as an extension to btf_dump__dump_type() API.
Right, forgot about this one.
Ok, let's make it `btf_dump__emit_type_def`, thank you.
