[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5315c03cd97af176065c86c0640461321c818887.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 15:21:25 -0800
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, Donglin Peng
<dolinux.peng@...il.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, zhangxiaoqin@...omi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Donglin Peng <pengdonglin@...omi.com>, Alan Maguire
<alan.maguire@...cle.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7 1/7] libbpf: Add BTF permutation support for type
reordering
On Wed, 2025-11-19 at 10:21 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 7:21 PM Donglin Peng <dolinux.peng@...il.com> wrote:
[...]
> > + nt = new_types;
> > + for (i = 0; i < new_nr_types; i++) {
> > + struct btf_field_iter it;
> > + const struct btf_type *t;
> > + __u32 *type_id;
> > + int type_size;
> > +
> > + id = order_map[i];
> > + /* must be a valid type ID */
>
> redundant comment, please drop
>
> > + t = btf__type_by_id(btf, id);
> > + if (!t) {
>
> no need to check this, we already validated that all types are valid earlier
>
> > + err = -EINVAL;
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > + type_size = btf_type_size(t);
> > + memcpy(nt, t, type_size);
> > +
> > + /* Fix up referenced IDs for BTF */
> > + err = btf_field_iter_init(&it, nt, BTF_FIELD_ITER_IDS);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto done;
> > + while ((type_id = btf_field_iter_next(&it))) {
> > + err = btf_permute_remap_type_id(type_id, &p);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > +
> > + nt += type_size;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Fix up referenced IDs for btf_ext */
> > + btf_ext = OPTS_GET(opts, btf_ext, NULL);
> > + if (btf_ext) {
> > + err = btf_ext_visit_type_ids(btf_ext, btf_permute_remap_type_id, &p);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > +
> > + new_type_len = nt - new_types;
>
>
> new_type_len has to be exactly the same as the old size, this is redundant
>
> > + next_type = new_types;
> > + end_type = next_type + new_type_len;
> > + i = 0;
> > + while (next_type + sizeof(struct btf_type) <= end_type) {
>
> while (next_type < end_type)?
>
> Reference to struct btf_type is confusing, as generally type is bigger
> than just sizeof(struct btf_type). But there is no need for this, with
> correct code next_type < end_type is sufficient check
>
> But really, this can also be written cleanly as a simple for loop
>
> for (i = 0; i < nr_types; i++) {
> btf->type_offs[i] = next_type - new_types;
> next_type += btf_type_size(next_type);
> }
>
Adding to what Andrii says, the whole group of assignments is
reducible:
+ new_type_len = nt - new_types;
+ next_type = new_types;
+ end_type = next_type + new_type_len;
=> end_type = new_types + new_type_len; // subst next_type -> new_types
=> end_type = new_types + nt - new_types; // subst new_types -> nt - new_types
=> end_type = nt
Why recomputing it in such a convoluted way?
> > + btf->type_offs[i++] = next_type - new_types;
> > + next_type += btf_type_size(next_type);
> > + }
> > +
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists