On 3/28/23 17:32, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
This one looks pretty useful and common (especially to work around
Clang's smartness). I have related set of helpers waiting it's time,
see [0]. I'd say we should think about some good naming of them,
document them properly (including various gotchas), and include them
(initially) in bpf_misc.h and start using them in selftests.
sounds good to me.
any preference for a name? bpf_index_array()?
- no need to say "bounded".
- want to begin with bpf_.
- sticking with your clamp style, "index" would be the verb. (instead
of e.g. bpf_array_index, which sounds like it has something to do with a
BPF array".
i'm up for anything though. =)
yeah, I'm hesitant about this one. It is very similar to
bpf_clam_xxx() macros I referenced above, probably we should use those
instead.
totally agree. i can switch my stuff to use the clamp, which covers all
of the use cases/signedness. btw, good to know the "s<" is
signed-less-than. i imagine i'd have had trouble with that. =)
thanks,
barret
