> > {
> > - struct src_obj obj =3D {};
> > - int err =3D 0, fd;
> > + int fd, ret;
> >
> > - if (!OPTS_VALID(opts, bpf_linker_file_opts))
> > - return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
> > + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_linker_file_opts, opts);
>
> this is a variable declaration, no empty lines between variable declaration=
> s
I'd originally written it without the extra empty line but got complaints from
checkpatch.pl. Is it ok to just ignore its warnings?
> > +int bpf_linker__add_buf(struct bpf_linker *linker, const char *name,
>
> why is the buffer name passed as an argument instead of through
> opts.filename? let's keep it simple and consistent
>
> and if user didn't care to pass opts.filename, just do some
> "mem:%p+%zu", buf, buf_sz thing
Just because memfd_create() requires a filename so I was treating it as a
required argument for this function too. Happy to change it to this
suggestion though.
All other comments make sense and I'll address them in the next patch.
