> On Nov 10, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 2:11 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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? > > It's not rc1 material. It's in bpf-next only. There is no rush, I think. Aha, I guess I messed up the branches. Song
