On Sat, Mar 1, 2025 at 1:45 PM Mykyta Yatsenko
<mykyta.yatsenko5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 01/03/2025 08:12, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2025-02-28 at 17:52 +0000, Mykyta Yatsenko wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> >> index 9ced1ce2334c..dd2f64903c3b 100644
> >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> >> @@ -4858,7 +4858,7 @@ bool bpf_map__autocreate(const struct bpf_map *map)
> >>
> >> int bpf_map__set_autocreate(struct bpf_map *map, bool autocreate)
> >> {
> >> - if (map->obj->state >= OBJ_LOADED)
> >> + if (map->obj->state >= OBJ_PREPARED)
> >> return libbpf_err(-EBUSY);
> > I looked through logic in patches #1 and #2 and changes look correct.
> > Running tests under valgrind does not show issues with this feature.
> > The only ask from my side is to consider doing ==/!= comparisons in
> > cases like above. E.g. it seems that `map->obj->state != OBJ_OPENED`
> > is a bit simpler to understand when reading condition above.
> > Or maybe that's just me.
> I'm not sure about this one. >= or < checks for state relative to
> operand more
> flexibly,for example `map->obj->state >= OBJ_PREPARED` is read as
> "is the object in at least PREPARED state". Perhaps, if we add more states,
> these >,< checks will not require any changes, while ==, != may.
> I guess this also depends on what we actually want to check here, is it that
> state at least PREPARED or the state is not initial OPENED.
> Not a strong opinion, though, happy to flip code to ==, !=.
Those steps are logically ordered, so >= and <= makes more sense. If
we ever add one extra step somewhere in between existing steps, most
checks will stay correct, while with equality a lot of them might need
to be adjusted to multiple equalities.
> >
> >> map->autocreate = autocreate;
> > [...]
> >
>
