On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 10:19 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:57 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > *
> > @@ -901,6 +931,8 @@ enum bpf_cmd {
> > BPF_ITER_CREATE,
> > BPF_LINK_DETACH,
> > BPF_PROG_BIND_MAP,
> > + BPF_TOKEN_CREATE,
> > + __MAX_BPF_CMD,
> > };
>
> Not an issue with this commit. I just noticed that
> commit f2e10bff16a0 ("bpf: Add support for BPF_OBJ_GET_INFO_BY_FD for bpf_link")
> added MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE to enum bpf_link_type.
> While this commit is correctly adding __MAX_BPF_CMD that
> is consistent with old __MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE (added in 2016)
> and __MAX_BPF_REG (added in 2014).
> I think it would be good to follow up with adding two underscores
> to MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE just to keep things consistent in bpf.h.
I'll send a small patch adjusting this
