On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:28 AM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:10 AM, Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 'bpf_ring_buffer__poll()' abstracts the polling method, so abstract the > > constants that make the implementation don't wait or wait indefinetly > > for data. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 3 +++ > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_ringbufs.c | 2 +- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c | 6 +++--- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf_multi.c | 4 ++-- > > 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h > > index f500621d28e5..3817d84f91c6 100644 > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h > > @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ LIBBPF_API int ring_buffer__poll(struct ring_buffer *rb, int timeout_ms); > > LIBBPF_API int ring_buffer__consume(struct ring_buffer *rb); > > LIBBPF_API int ring_buffer__epoll_fd(const struct ring_buffer *rb); > > > > +#define ring_buffer__poll_wait(rb) ring_buffer__poll(rb, -1) > > +#define ring_buffer__poll_nowait(rb) ring_buffer__poll(rb, 0) > > I think we don't need ring_buffer__poll_wait() as ring_buffer__poll() already > means "wait for timeout_ms". > > Actually, I think ring_buffer__poll() is enough. ring_buffer__poll_nowait() > is not that useful either. > I agree. I think adding a comment to the API itself might be useful specifying 0 and -1 as somewhat special cases. > Thanks, > Song >
