On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:15 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 08:11:59PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:24:35PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > + > > > +DEFINE_BPF_MULTI_FUNC(unsigned long a1, unsigned long a2, > > > + unsigned long a3, unsigned long a4, > > > + unsigned long a5, unsigned long a6) > > > > This is probably a bit too x86 specific. May be make add all 12 args? > > Or other places would need to be tweaked? > > I think si, I'll check > > > > > > +BTF_ID_LIST_SINGLE(bpf_multi_func_btf_id, func, bpf_multi_func) > > ... > > > - prog->aux->attach_btf_id = attr->attach_btf_id; > > > + prog->aux->attach_btf_id = multi_func ? bpf_multi_func_btf_id[0] : attr->attach_btf_id; > > > > Just ignoring that was passed in uattr? > > Maybe instead of ignoring dopr BPF_F_MULTI_FUNC and make libbpf > > point to that btf_id instead? > > Then multi or not can be checked with if (attr->attach_btf_id == bpf_multi_func_btf_id[0]). > > > > nice idea, it might fit better than the flag Instead of a flag we can also use a different expected_attach_type (FENTRY vs FENTRY_MULTI, etc). As for attach_btf_id, why can't we just enforce it as 0? > > thanks, > jirka >
