netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: Add cscope and TAGS targets to Makefile

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87r23soo75.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Fri, 04 Oct 2019 11:27:26 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: Add cscope and TAGS targets to Makefile

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:46 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Using cscope and/or TAGS files for navigating the source code is useful.
>> Add simple targets to the Makefile to generate the index files for both
>> tools.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>> ---
>
> Thanks a lot for adding this!
>
> I tested cscope only and it works (especially without -k), so:
>
> Tested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
>
>
>>  tools/lib/bpf/.gitignore |  2 ++
>>  tools/lib/bpf/Makefile   | 10 +++++++++-
>>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/.gitignore b/tools/lib/bpf/.gitignore
>> index d9e9dec04605..c1057c01223e 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/.gitignore
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/.gitignore
>> @@ -3,3 +3,5 @@ libbpf.pc
>>  FEATURE-DUMP.libbpf
>>  test_libbpf
>>  libbpf.so.*
>> +TAGS
>> +cscope.*
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/Makefile b/tools/lib/bpf/Makefile
>> index c6f94cffe06e..57df6b933196 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/Makefile
>> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ clean:
>>
>>
>>
>> -PHONY += force elfdep bpfdep
>> +PHONY += force elfdep bpfdep cscope TAGS
>>  force:
>>
>>  elfdep:
>> @@ -271,6 +271,14 @@ elfdep:
>>  bpfdep:
>>         @if [ "$(feature-bpf)" != "1" ]; then echo "BPF API too old"; exit 1 ; fi
>>
>> +cscope:
>> +       (echo \-k; echo \-q; for f in *.c *.h; do echo $$f; done) > cscope.files
>> +       cscope -b -f cscope.out
>
> 1. I'd drop -k, given libbpf is user-land library, so it's convenient
> to jump into system headers for some of BPF definitions.

Well, the reason I included it was that when using the version in the
kernel tree, I found it really annoying to jump to kernel headers
installed in the system. Then I'd rather the jump fails and I can go
lookup the header in the kernel tree myself.

So maybe we should rather use -I to point at the parent directory? You
guys could then strip that when syncing to the github repo?

> 2. Wouldn't this be simpler and work exactly the same?
>
> ls *.c *.h > cscope.files
> cscope -b -q -f cscope.out

Well, I usually avoid 'ls' because I have it aliased in my shell so it
prints more info than just the file names. But I don't suppose that's an
issue inside the Makefile, so will fix :)

>> +
>> +TAGS:
>
> let's make it lower-case, please? Linux makefile supports both `make
> tags` and `make TAGS`, but all-caps is terrible :)

You mean just rename the 'make' target, right? Sure, can do...

As for the file itself, I think the version actually on what you use to
generate the tags file. 'ctags' generates lower-case 'tags' by default,
while 'etags' generates 'TAGS'.

I don't use either, so dunno why that different exists, and if it's
actually meaningful? Should we do both?

>> +       rm -f TAGS
>> +       echo *.c *.h | xargs etags -a
>
> nit: might as well do ls *.c *.h for consistency with cscope
> suggestion above (though in both cases we just rely on shell expansion
> logic, so doesn't matter).

Heh, pedantic much? ;)
But OK, I have no strong feelings one way or the other...

-Toke