On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:06 AM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:33:47PM +0100, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> > > +static const char *cgroup_order_string(__u32 order)
> > > +{
> > > + switch (order) {
> > > + case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_ORDER_UNSPEC:
> > > + return "order_unspec";
> > > + case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_SELF_ONLY:
> > > + return "self_only";
> > > + case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_PRE:
> > > + return "descendants_pre";
> > > + case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_DESCENDANTS_POST:
> > > + return "descendants_post";
> > > + case BPF_CGROUP_ITER_ANCESTORS_UP:
> > > + return "ancestors_up";
> > > + default: /* won't happen */
> > > + return "";
> >
> > I wonder if that one should be "unknown", in case another option is
> > added in the future, so we can spot it and address it?
> I added "unknown" and applied.
Thanks Martin and Quentin, "unknown" is better than an empty string.
