All of
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexei Starovoitov <>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <>, bpf <>,
	Networking <>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,
	Kernel Team <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] libbpf: add raw BTF type dumping
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:18:09 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 05:44:48PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:03 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 04:28:39PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > Add btf_dump__dump_type_raw() API that emits human-readable low-level BTF type
> > > information, same as bpftool output. bpftool is not switched to this API
> > > because bpftool still needs to perform all the same BTF type processing logic
> > > to do JSON output, so benefits are pretty much zero.
> >
> > If the only existing user cannot actually use such api it speaks heavily
> > against adding such api to libbpf. Comparing strings in tests is nice, but
> > could be done with C output just as well.
> It certainly can, it just won't save much code, because bpftool would
> still need to have a big switch over BTF type kinds to do JSON output.

So you're saying that most of the dump_btf_type() in bpftool/btf.c will stay as-is.
Only 'if (json_output)' will become unconditional? Hmm.
I know you don't want json in libbpf, but I think it's the point of
making a call on such things. Either libbpf gets to dump both
json and text dump_btf_type()-like output or it stays with C only.
Doing C and this text and not doing json is inconsistent.
Either libbpf can print btf in many different ways or it stays with C.
2nd format is not special in any way.
I don't think that text and json formats bring much value comparing to C,
so I would be fine with C only. But if we allow 2nd format we should
do json at the same time too to save bpftool the hassle.
And in the future we should allow 4th and 5th formats.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-30  3:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-29 23:28 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] libbpf: add raw BTF type dumping Andrii Nakryiko
2020-09-29 23:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] libbpf: make btf_dump work with modifiable BTF Andrii Nakryiko
2020-09-29 23:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] libbpf: add raw dumping of BTF types Andrii Nakryiko
2020-09-29 23:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] selftests/bpf: add checking of raw type dump in BTF writer APIs selftests Andrii Nakryiko
2020-09-29 23:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: test "incremental" btf_dump in C format Andrii Nakryiko
2020-09-30  0:03 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] libbpf: add raw BTF type dumping Alexei Starovoitov
2020-09-30  0:44   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-09-30  3:18     ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2020-09-30 18:22       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-09-30 21:29         ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-09-30 22:47           ` Andrii Nakryiko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.