On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:36 AM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Also, we probably shouldn't name the type PTR_TO_BTF_ID if > > > it can be NULL. How about renaming it in bpf-next then although > > > it will be code churn... Or just fix the comments? Probably > > > bpf-next content though. wdyt? In my opinion the comments and > > > type names are really misleading as it stands. > > > > So PTR_TO_BTF_ID actually means it may be null but not checking > > is enforced and pointer tracing is always allowed. > > PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL means it may be null and checking against > > NULL is needed to allow further pointer tracing. > > > > To avoid code churn, we can add these comments in bpf-next. > > Agreed code churn would be not worth changing type but I'll send > some patches for the comment changes. +1 I think for bpf tree the minimal fix is better. So I've applied this set. A follow up to bpf-next after bpf->net->linus->net-next->bpf-next would be really good. We'll make sure that all trees converge soon.
