[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKjOGr+v-xA6JP2wriha6BFFA0cs8cdUY-74ft2YYzXkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 12:36:29 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 06/29] bpf: Add bpf_arg/bpf_ret_value helpers for
tracing programs
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:00 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> But you emphasized an important point, that it's probably good to
> allow users to distinguish errors from reading actual value 0. There
> are and will be situations where argument isn't available or some
> combination of conditions are not supported. So I think, while it's a
> bit more verbose, these forms are generally better:
>
> int bpf_get_func_arg(int n, u64 *value);
> int bpf_get_func_ret(u64 *value);
>
> WDYT?
Makes sense to me.
The verifier will be able to inline it just fine.
Two extra insns only compared to direct return.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists