2021-07-22 19:45 UTC-0700 ~ Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 5:58 PM Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 8:38 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> As part of the effort to move towards a v1.0 for libbpf [0], this set >>> improves some confusing function names related to BTF loading from and to >>> the kernel: >>> >>> - btf__load() becomes btf__load_into_kernel(). >>> - btf__get_from_id becomes btf__load_from_kernel_by_id(). >>> - A new version btf__load_from_kernel_by_id_split() extends the former to >>> add support for split BTF. >>> >>> The old functions are not removed or marked as deprecated yet, there >>> should be in a future libbpf version. >> >> Oh, and I was thinking about this whole deprecation having to be done >> in two steps. It's super annoying to keep track of that. Ideally, we'd >> have some macro that can mark API deprecated "in the future", when >> actual libbpf version is >= to defined version. So something like >> this: >> >> LIBBPF_DEPRECATED_AFTER(V(0,5), "API that will be marked deprecated in v0.6") > > Better: > > LIBBPF_DEPRECATED_SINCE(0, 6, "API that will be marked deprecated in v0.6") I was considering a very advanced feature called “opening a new GitHub issue” to track this :). But the macro game sounds interesting, I'll look into it for next version. One nit with LIBBPF_DEPRECATED_SINCE() is that the warning mentions a version (here v0.6) that we are unsure will exist (say we jump from v0.5 to v1.0). But I don't suppose that's a real issue. Thanks for the feedback! Quentin
