On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:48:27PM -0600, David Vernet wrote: > 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) Yeah. Especially for those. > ) { > > // ... > > } > > Note the presence of the { on the closing paren. Are you ok with that? > Otherwise I think it will look a bit odd: Yep. Good idea. Either ){ or ) { look good to me. > 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