[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+FLARg_qFyJtqe7sMouc2rgZAh8Md4OC+MguU61uJzjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 18:21:45 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Cc: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Add __bpf_kfunc tag for marking kernel
functions as kfuncs
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:05 AM David Vernet <void@...ifault.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe 3 macroses then?
> > > bpf_kfunc_start to hide __diag
> > > bpf_kfunc on the proto line
> > > bpf_kfunc_end to finish __diag_pop
>
> Ah, I see. Hmm, I guess this is better than what we have now, but is
> still a lot of macros and boilerplate which IMO is a sign we're not
> going in quite the right direction. I don't really have a better
> suggestion at this point, though I do like Kumar's suggestion below.
>
> > There's also the option of doing this:
> >
> > #define BPF_KFUNC(proto) proto; __used noinline proto
> >
> > BPF_KFUNC(void kfunc(arg1, arg2)) {
> > ...
> > }
Fine by me.
Just put { on the new line.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists