On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:02 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> > > To prepare relo_core.c to be compiled in the kernel and the user space > replace btf__type_by_id with btf_type_by_id. > > In libbpf btf__type_by_id and btf_type_by_id have different behavior. > > bpf_core_apply_relo_insn() needs behavior of uapi btf__type_by_id > vs internal btf_type_by_id, but type_id range check is already done > in bpf_core_apply_relo(), so it's safe to replace it everywhere. > The kernel btf_type_by_id() does the check anyway. It doesn't hurt. > > Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- A bit of obnoxiousness. When applied locally with pw-apply, the subject of this patch looks like this: eddb6c529562 libbpf: S/btf__type_by_id/btf_type_by_id/ Quite weird. More human-readable "Replace btf__type_by_id() with btf_type_by_id()" reads so much better ;) > tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 2 +- > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 2 +- > tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c > index fadf089ae8fe..aa0e0bbde697 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c > @@ -454,7 +454,7 @@ const struct btf *btf__base_btf(const struct btf *btf) > } > [...] > type_id = spec->root_type_id; > - t = btf__type_by_id(spec->btf, type_id); > + t = btf_type_by_id(spec->btf, type_id); > s = btf__name_by_offset(spec->btf, t->name_off); > > libbpf_print(level, "[%u] %s %s", type_id, btf_kind_str(t), str_is_empty(s) ? "<anon>" : s); > @@ -1158,7 +1158,7 @@ int bpf_core_apply_relo_insn(const char *prog_name, struct bpf_insn *insn, > int i, j, err; > > local_id = relo->type_id; > - local_type = btf__type_by_id(local_btf, local_id); > + local_type = btf_type_by_id(local_btf, local_id); > if (!local_type) > return -EINVAL; Please remove this check, it's meaningless with the use of btf_type_by_id() and you already justified why it's not necessary. > > -- > 2.30.2 >
