On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:00 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But you emphasized an important point, that it's probably good to > allow users to distinguish errors from reading actual value 0. There > are and will be situations where argument isn't available or some > combination of conditions are not supported. So I think, while it's a > bit more verbose, these forms are generally better: > > int bpf_get_func_arg(int n, u64 *value); > int bpf_get_func_ret(u64 *value); > > WDYT? Makes sense to me. The verifier will be able to inline it just fine. Two extra insns only compared to direct return.
