On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 8:35 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/25/21 10:18 PM, Florent Revest wrote: > > These macros are convenient wrappers around the bpf_seq_printf and > > bpf_snprintf helpers. They are currently provided by bpf_tracing.h which > > targets low level tracing primitives. bpf_helpers.h is a better fit. > > > > The __bpf_narg and __bpf_apply macros are needed in both files so > > provided twice and guarded by ifndefs. > > > > Reported-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Given v1/v2 both target bpf tree in the subject, do you really mean bpf or > rather bpf-next? I don't have a preference, it's up to you :) On one hand, I see no urgency in fixing this: BPF_SEQ_PRINTF has been in bpf_tracing.h for a while already so it can wait for another kernel release. Applying this to bpf-next would do. On the other hand, BPF_SNPRINTF hasn't made it to a kernel release yet so we still have a chance to do it right before users start including bpf_tracing.h and we'd break them in the next release. That's why I tagged it as bpf. The patch applies cleanly on both trees so if you prefer landing it in bpf-next it's fine by me.
