On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 6:35 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 8:01 AM Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > I think it should go through bpf-next. It's not really a bug fix. And > we are not going to break anyone with this move. And libbpf 0.4 is > officially released without this change anyway. So, bpf-next. Sounds good, I'll send a v3 tagged with bpf-next ;)
