On 1/23/23 7:54 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
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)
)
{
}
Did you look into making this similar to the EXPORT_SYMBOL() infra? If possible
that would look much more natural to developers, e.g. :
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)
{
[...]
}
EXPORT_BPF_KFUNC(bpf_skb_ct_lookup);
