On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 9:40 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 01:15:49PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:17:57PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > > > Otherwise I think this could be a bit misunderstood, e.g. most of the networking > > > > programs (e.g. XDP, tc, sock_addr) have a fixed framework around them where > > > > attaching programs is part of ABI. > > > > > > Excellent point, thank you! > > > > > > Apologies for the newbie question, but does BTF_ID() mark a function as > > > ABI from the viewpoing of a BPF program calling that function, attaching > > > to that function, or both? Either way, is it worth mentioning this > > > in this QA entry? > > > > Not necessarily. For example, __filemap_add_folio has a BTF_ID(), but > > it is not ABI (it's error injection). > > OK, sounds like something to leave out of the QA, then. Obviously, BTF_ID marking doesn't make the kernel function an abi in any way. Just like EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL doesn't do it. Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst already explains it. Probably worth repeating in the QA part of the doc.
