On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 2:58 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 Someone gotta track and ping people at the right time even with issues, so yeah, it's suboptimal. > 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. There will always be a +0.1 version just to get deprecation activated. This is for the reason I explained: we add replacement API in 0.X, but can mark deprecated API in 0.(X+1), so we won't skip it, even if we have to wait 2 extra months before 1.0. So I wouldn't worry about this. > > Thanks for the feedback! > Quentin
