Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Use BPF_KFUNC macro at all kfunc definitions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Use BPF_KFUNC macro at all kfunc definitions
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 23:15:04 -0800
Cc: bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ast@xxxxxxxxxx, daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, andrii@xxxxxxxxxx, martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx, song@xxxxxxxxxx, yhs@xxxxxxxx, john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx, kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx, sdf@xxxxxxxxxx, haoluo@xxxxxxxxxx, jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kernel-team@xxxxxxxx, memxor@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20230123171506.71995-4-void@manifault.com>

I don't think this is the way to go.  For one the syntax looks odd,
and for another count we had a rough agreement at the kernel summit
to make BPF kfuncs look more like export symbols.

So can you please try to instad make this a EXPORT_SYMBOL_BPF that
looks and feels more like EXPORT_SYMBOL instead?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Use BPF_KFUNC macro at all kfunc definitions
  - From: David Vernet

References:
- [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] Add BPF_KFUNC macro for kfunc definitions
  - From: David Vernet
- [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Use BPF_KFUNC macro at all kfunc definitions
  - From: David Vernet

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tools/resolve_btfids: Install subcmd headers
Next by Date: Re: BTF, pahole and static functions (was Re: [PATCH] libbpf: resolve kernel function name optimization for kprobe)
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Use BPF_KFUNC macro at all kfunc definitions
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Use BPF_KFUNC macro at all kfunc definitions
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Samsung SoC] [Linux Rockchip SoC] [Linux Actions SoC] [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors] [Linux NFS] [Linux NILFS] [Linux USB Devel] [Video for Linux] [Linux Audio Users] [Yosemite News] [Linux Kernel] [Linux SCSI]