> On Nov 10, 2021, at 2:02 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:47 AM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF >> -BTF_ID_LIST_GLOBAL(btf_sock_ids) >> +BTF_ID_LIST_GLOBAL(btf_sock_ids, MAX_BTF_SOCK_TYPE) >> #define BTF_SOCK_TYPE(name, type) BTF_ID(struct, type) >> BTF_SOCK_TYPE_xxx >> #undef BTF_SOCK_TYPE >> -#else >> -u32 btf_sock_ids[MAX_BTF_SOCK_TYPE]; >> -#endif > > If we're trying to future proof it I think it would be better > to combine it with MAX_BTF_SOCK_TYPE and BTF_SOCK_TYPE_xxx macro. > (or have another macro that is tracing specific). > That will help avoid cryptic btf_task_struct_ids[0|1|2] > references in the code. Yeah, this makes sense. I am taking time off for tomorrow and Friday, so I probably won't have time to implement this before 5.16-rc1. How about we ship this fix as-is, and improve it later? Thanks, Song
