[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e6de7c0b-97cc-090e-a331-dc566019f54e@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:58:30 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <horms@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/core: Export dev_core_stats_rx_dropped_inc sets
From: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:08:08 +0800
>
> On 2023/9/13 00:22, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>> From: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
>> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:20:16 +0800
[...]
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_core_stats_inc); // Why not GPL BTW?
>
> This may be a better option.
>
> Just because EXPORT_SYMBOL(netdev_core_stats_alloc) before, but I think
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is better.
Ah I see. BTW, if you will still define increment functions as
externals, there will be no reason to export netdev_core_stats_alloc()
or even make it non-static at all.
>
>
>> And then build inlines:
>>
>> #define DEV_CORE_STATS_INC(FIELD) \
>> static inline void \
>> dev_core_stats_##FIELD##_inc(struct net_device *dev) \
>> { \
>> dev_core_stats_inc(dev, \
>> offsetof(struct net_device_core_stats, FIELD)); \
>> }
>>
>> DEV_CORE_STATS_INC(rx_dropped);
>> ...
>>
>> OR even just make them macros
>>
>> #define __DEV_CORE_STATS_INC(dev, field) \
>> dev_core_stats_inc(dev, \
>> offsetof(struct net_device_core_stats, field))
>>
>> #define dev_core_stats_rx_dropped_inc(dev) \
>> __DEV_CORE_STATS_INC(dev, rx_dropped)
>> ...
>
> I would like the former. Keep it the same as before.
By "the former" you mean to build static inlines or externals? Seems
like the first one, but I got confused by your "the same as before" :D
>
>
>> Just don't copy that awful Thunderbird's line wrap and don't assume this
>> code builds and works and that is something finished/polished.
>>
>> You'll be able to trace functions and you'll be able to understand which
>> counter has been incremented by checking the second argument, i.e. the
>> field offset (IIRC tracing shows you arguments).
>> And that way you wouldn't geometrically increase the number of symbol
>> exports and deal with its consequences.
> I agree that.
Ok, after this one I guess you meant "I'd like to use your approach with
static inlines".
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * dev_get_stats - get network device statistics
>> Thanks,
>> Olek
Thanks,
Olek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists