On 03/14/2015 05:59 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 3/13/15 7:27 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 3/13/15 7:16 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 03/14/2015 03:08 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 3/13/15 7:06 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 03/14/2015 02:46 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
...
Previously, it was much more consistent, which I like better. And only
because of the simple BUILD_BUG_ON()? :/
Alternative is to move all of them into a central place, something like
in twsk_build_assert() or __mld2_query_bugs[].
nope. that defeats the purpose of bug_on.
Well, it doesn't. ;) It throws a build error thus the user is forced to
investigate that further.
according to this distorted logic all build_bug_on can be in one file
across the whole tree, since 'user is forced to investigate' ?!
That was not what I was suggesting, and I assume you know that ...
also note that this case and twsk_build_assert are different.
twsk_build_assert has no other choice then to have one function
that covers logic in the whole file, whereas in this patch:
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(FIELD_SIZEOF(struct sk_buff, mark) != 4);
+ *insn++ = BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, dst_reg, src_reg,
+ offsetof(struct sk_buff, mark));
the build_bug_on protect the line directly below.
Separating them just doesn't make sense at all.
I also like the above approach better, I only suggested that as a
possible alternative since you were saying earlier in this thread:
I thought about it, but didn't add it, since we already have them
in the same file several lines above this spot. I think one build
error per .c file should be enough to attract attention. Though
I'll add a comment to convert_bpf_extensions() that build_bug_on
errors should be addressed in two places.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
