[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8/oGIEjibbbNaE2@maniforge.lan>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 08:15:52 -0600
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
yhs@...a.com, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
memxor@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Use BPF_KFUNC macro at all kfunc
definitions
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:15:04PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I don't think this is the way to go. For one the syntax looks odd,
> and for another count we had a rough agreement at the kernel summit
> to make BPF kfuncs look more like export symbols.
>
> So can you please try to instad make this a EXPORT_SYMBOL_BPF that
> looks and feels more like EXPORT_SYMBOL instead?
Yeah, that matches what others (Daniel and Jon) have suggested in
another thread. I'll echo what I said in [0], which is essentially that
I agree with you all that something which more closely resembles
EXPORT_SYMBOL* is a better approach, and am fine with tabling this for
now until I have a bit more bandwidth to work on something that's a more
complete / appropriate solution.
[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y88sMlmrq0wCFSRP@maniforge.lan/
Thanks for the review! Will CC you on the v3, whenever that is.
- David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists