On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 3:20 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 2:34 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 1:53 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >> > >> >> > On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 11:36 PM John Fastabend > >> >> > <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > >> >> >> > Implement error reporting changes discussed in "Libbpf: the road to v1.0" > >> >> >> > ([0]) document. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Libbpf gets a new API, libbpf_set_strict_mode() which accepts a set of flags > >> >> >> > that turn on a set of libbpf 1.0 changes, that might be potentially breaking. > >> >> >> > It's possible to opt-in into all current and future 1.0 features by specifying > >> >> >> > LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL flag. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > When some of the 1.0 "features" are requested, libbpf APIs might behave > >> >> >> > differently. In this patch set a first set of changes are implemented, all > >> >> >> > related to the way libbpf returns errors. See individual patches for details. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Patch #1 adds a no-op libbpf_set_strict_mode() functionality to enable > >> >> >> > updating selftests. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Patch #2 gets rid of all the bad code patterns that will break in libbpf 1.0 > >> >> >> > (exact -1 comparison for low-level APIs, direct IS_ERR() macro usage to check > >> >> >> > pointer-returning APIs for error, etc). These changes make selftest work in > >> >> >> > both legacy and 1.0 libbpf modes. Selftests also opt-in into 100% libbpf 1.0 > >> >> >> > mode to automatically gain all the subsequent changes, which will come in > >> >> >> > follow up patches. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Patch #3 streamlines error reporting for low-level APIs wrapping bpf() syscall. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Patch #4 streamlines errors for all the rest APIs. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Patch #5 ensures that BPF skeletons propagate errors properly as well, as > >> >> >> > currently on error some APIs will return NULL with no way of checking exact > >> >> >> > error code. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > [0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UyjTZuPFWiPFyKk1tV5an11_iaRuec6U-ZESZ54nNTY > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Andrii Nakryiko (5): > >> >> >> > libbpf: add libbpf_set_strict_mode() API to turn on libbpf 1.0 > >> >> >> > behaviors > >> >> >> > selftests/bpf: turn on libbpf 1.0 mode and fix all IS_ERR checks > >> >> >> > libbpf: streamline error reporting for low-level APIs > >> >> >> > libbpf: streamline error reporting for high-level APIs > >> >> >> > bpftool: set errno on skeleton failures and propagate errors > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> LGTM for the series, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks, John! > >> >> > > >> >> > Toke, Stanislav, you cared about these aspects of libbpf 1.0 (by > >> >> > commenting on the doc itself), do you mind also taking a brief look > >> >> > and letting me know if this works for your use cases? Thanks! > >> >> > >> >> Changes LGTM: > >> >> > >> >> Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > >> >> As a side note, the series seems to have been chopped up into individual > >> >> emails with no threading; was a bit weird that I had to go hunting for > >> >> the individual patches in my mailbox... > >> >> > >> > > >> > That's my bad, I messed up and sent them individually and probably > >> > that's why they weren't threaded properly. > >> > >> Right, OK, I'll stop looking for bugs on my end, then :) > >> > >> BTW, one more thing that just came to mind: since that gdoc is not > >> likely to be around forever, would it be useful to make the reference in > >> the commit message(s) point to something more stable? IDK what that > >> shoul be, really. Maybe just pasting (an abbreviated outline of?) the > >> text in the document into the cover letter / merge commit could work? > > > > I was hoping Google won't deprecate Google Docs any time soon and I > > had no intention to remove that document. But I was also thinking to > > start wiki page at github.com/libbpf/libbpf with migration > > instructions, so once that is up and running I can link that from > > libbpf_set_strict_mode() doc comment. > > Right, that sounds reasonable :) > > > But I'd like to avoid blocking on that. > > Understandable; but just pasting an outline into the commit message (and > keeping the link) could work in the meantime? I'm not sure what are we trying to achieve by copy/pasting parts of that doc here. Each patch succinctly explains how each feature behaves, so it's completely self-describing. I put the link to the document for anyone that wants to read the entire discussion or leave some more comments, but it's not mandatory to understand this patch set. > > -Toke >
