On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 12:39:55AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> @@ -936,51 +956,51 @@ static int bpf_map_alloc_off_arr(struct bpf_map *map)
> {
> bool has_spin_lock = map_value_has_spin_lock(map);
> bool has_timer = map_value_has_timer(map);
> - bool has_kptrs = map_value_has_kptrs(map);
> - struct bpf_map_off_arr *off_arr;
> + bool has_fields = !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(map);
should have been map->record.
> - if (!map_value_has_kptrs(map_ptr)) {
> - ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(map_ptr->kptr_off_tab);
> - if (ret == -E2BIG)
> - verbose(env, "map '%s' has more than %d kptr\n", map_ptr->name,
> - BPF_MAP_VALUE_OFF_MAX);
> - else if (ret == -EEXIST)
> - verbose(env, "map '%s' has repeating kptr BTF tags\n", map_ptr->name);
> - else
> - verbose(env, "map '%s' has no valid kptr\n", map_ptr->name);
> + if (!btf_record_has_field(map_ptr->record, BPF_KPTR)) {
> + verbose(env, "map '%s' has no valid kptr\n", map_ptr->name);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
The loss of verbosity is annoying, but I see why you're doing it.
