On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 1:32 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Code for printing link attach_type is duplicated in a couple of places, and
> likely will be duplicated for future link types as well. Create helpers to
> prevent duplication.
>
> Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
LGTM, minor nit below.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
> index 670a561dc31b..1ff416eff3d7 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
> @@ -62,6 +62,15 @@ show_link_header_json(struct bpf_link_info *info, json_writer_t *wtr)
> jsonw_uint_field(json_wtr, "prog_id", info->prog_id);
> }
>
> +static void show_link_attach_type_json(__u32 attach_type, json_writer_t *wtr)
nit: if you look at jsonw_uint_field/jsonw_string_field, they accept
json_write_t as a first argument, because they are sort of working on
"object" json_writer_t. I think that's good and consistent. No big
deal, but if you can adjust it for consistency, it would be good.
> +{
> + if (attach_type < ARRAY_SIZE(attach_type_name))
> + jsonw_string_field(wtr, "attach_type",
> + attach_type_name[attach_type]);
> + else
> + jsonw_uint_field(wtr, "attach_type", attach_type);
> +}
> +
[...]
