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
