On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 10:33:05AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:15:06AM -0600, David Vernet wrote:
> > -void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign)
> > +BPF_KFUNC(void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign))
> > {
> > struct btf_struct_meta *meta = meta__ign;
> > u64 size = local_type_id__k;
> > @@ -1790,7 +1786,7 @@ void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign)
> > return p;
> > }
> >
> > -void bpf_obj_drop_impl(void *p__alloc, void *meta__ign)
> > +BPF_KFUNC(void bpf_obj_drop_impl(void *p__alloc, void *meta__ign))
> > {
>
> The following also works:
> -BPF_KFUNC(void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign))
> +BPF_KFUNC(
> +void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign)
> +)
>
> and it looks little bit cleaner to me.
>
> git grep -A1 BPF_KFUNC
> can still find all instances of kfuncs.
>
> wdyt?
I'm fine with putting it on its own line if that's your preference.
Agreed that it might be a bit cleaner, especially for functions with the
return type on its own line, so we'd have e.g.:
BPF_KFUNC(
struct nf_conn *
bpf_skb_ct_lookup(struct __sk_buff *skb_ctx, struct bpf_sock_tuple *bpf_tuple,
u32 tuple__sz, struct bpf_ct_opts *opts, u32 opts__sz)
) {
// ...
}
Note the presence of the { on the closing paren. Are you ok with that?
Otherwise I think it will look a bit odd:
BPF_KFUNC(
struct nf_conn *
bpf_skb_ct_lookup(struct __sk_buff *skb_ctx, struct bpf_sock_tuple *bpf_tuple,
u32 tuple__sz, struct bpf_ct_opts *opts, u32 opts__sz)
)
{
}
Thanks,
David
