> On Nov 9, 2020, at 5:19 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> ...
>
> Tested-by: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
With one nit:
> ---
> tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
> index c96b56e8e3a4..ed5e97157241 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
> @@ -742,9 +742,14 @@ show_btf_plain(struct bpf_btf_info *info, int fd,
> struct btf_attach_table *btf_map_table)
> {
> struct btf_attach_point *obj;
> + const char *name = u64_to_ptr(info->name);
> int n;
>
> printf("%u: ", info->id);
> + if (info->kernel_btf)
> + printf("name [%s] ", name);
> + else if (name && name[0])
> + printf("name %s ", name);
Maybe explicitly say "name <anonymous>" for btf without a name? I think
it will benefit plain output.
> printf("size %uB", info->btf_size);
>
> n = 0;
[...]
