On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 5:50 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 18:48, Benjamin Tissoires > <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [...] > > If the above is correct, then yes, it would make sense to me to have 2 > > distinct functions: one to check for the args types only (does the > > function definition in the problem matches BTF), and one to check for > > its use. > > Behind the scenes, btf_check_subprog_arg_match() calls > > btf_check_func_arg_match() which is the one function with entangled > > arguments type checking and actually assessing that the values > > provided are correct. > > > > I can try to split that btf_check_func_arg_match() into 2 distinct > > functions, though I am not sure I'll get it right. > > FYI, I've already split them into separate functions in my tree > because it had become super ugly at this point with all the new > support and I refactored it to add the linked list helpers support > using kfuncs (which requires some special handling for the args), so I > think you can just leave it with a "processing_call" check in for your > series for now. > great, thanks a lot. Actually, writing the patch today with the "processing_call" was really easy now that I have turned the problem in my head a lot yesterday. I am about to send v10 with the reviews addressed. Cheers, Benjamin
