On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:37 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 12:35 AM CEST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I followed show_link_header_json example here. I'm guessing the
> intention was to keep show_link_header_json and show_link_header_plain
> consistent, as the former takes an extra arg (wtr).
It's fine, it's a minor point, even though this order feels backwards to me :)
>
> >
> >> +{
> >> + 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);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > [...]
