On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 9:46 AM Daniel Müller <deso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 04:59:19PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:17:10PM +0000, Daniel Müller wrote:
> > > +int bpf_core_types_match(const struct btf *local_btf, __u32 local_id,
> > > + const struct btf *targ_btf, __u32 targ_id)
> > > +{
> >
> > The libbpf and kernel support for types_match looks nearly identical.
> > Maybe put in tools/lib/bpf/relo_core.c so it's one copy for both?
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, at least for parts we should probably do it.
>
> Would you happen to know why that has not been done for
> bpf_core_types_are_compat equally? Is it because of the recursion level
> tracking that is only present in the kernel? I'd think that similar reasoning
> applies here.
Historical. Probably should be combined.
Code duplication is the source of all kinds of maintenance issues
and subtle bugs.
