[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190228024715.ijjki2fleuunxydn@ast-mbp>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:47:17 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/5] tools: libbpf: add a correctly named define
for map iteration
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:57:03PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:47:56 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:31 PM Jakub Kicinski
> > <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > For historical reasons the helper to loop over maps in an object
> > > is called bpf_map__for_each while it really should be called
> > > bpf_object__for_each_map. Rename and add a correctly named
> > > define for backward compatibility.
> >
> > Seems like there are at least 3 more functions that are not named correctly:
> > - __bpf_map__iter (__bpf_object__iter_map?)
> > - bpf_map__next (=> bpf_object__next_map?)
> > - bpf_map__prev (=> bpf_object__prev_map?)
> >
> > Let's rename them as well?
>
> At least those are consistently named between programs and maps.
I think this patch makes naming consistent enough.
> I'm happy to do the rename if we don't need backward compat, seems
> a little much to add aliases?
>
> > > Switch all in-tree users to the correct name (Quentin).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
>
> > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> > > index 6c0168f8bba5..b4652aa1a58a 100644
> > > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> > > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> > > @@ -278,10 +278,11 @@ bpf_object__find_map_by_offset(struct bpf_object *obj, size_t offset);
> > >
> > > LIBBPF_API struct bpf_map *
> > > bpf_map__next(struct bpf_map *map, struct bpf_object *obj);
> > > -#define bpf_map__for_each(pos, obj) \
> > > +#define bpf_object__for_each_map(pos, obj) \
> > > for ((pos) = bpf_map__next(NULL, (obj)); \
> > > (pos) != NULL; \
> > > (pos) = bpf_map__next((pos), (obj)))
> > > +#define bpf_map__for_each bpf_object__for_each_map
> >
> > Should we get rid of this as well, instead of accumulating cruft?
>
> Well, we did some gymnastics in the past to maintain backward compat,
> I thought we do need it..?
We do need to keep backward compat.
This line is necessary.
imo this set looks good to me as-is.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists