From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: add bpf_object__open_{file,mem} w/ sized opts
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 08:55:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87imp7tz46.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZJFBdjCSAzJ3-rOrCkkaTJmPSDhx_0xKJt4+Vg2TEFwg@mail.gmail.com>
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> writes:
>> Sure, LGTM! Should we still keep the bit where it expands _opts in the
>> struct name as part of the macro, or does that become too obtuse?
>
> For me it's a question of code navigation. When I'll have a code
>
> LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open, <whatever>);
>
> I'll want to jump to the definition of "bpf_object_open" (e.g., w/
> cscope)... and will find nothing, because it's actually
> bpf_object_open_opts. So I prefer user to spell it out exactly and in
> full, this is more maintainable in the long run, IMO.
That's a good point; we shouldn't break cscope!
BTW, speaking of cscope, how about having a 'make cscope' target for
libbpf to generate the definition file? :)
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-02 6:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-30 16:42 [RFC][PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: add bpf_object__open_{file,mem} w/ sized opts Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-01 8:42 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-01 18:56 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-01 21:49 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-01 23:43 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-02 6:55 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2019-10-02 16:55 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-10-01 16:48 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2019-10-01 18:59 ` 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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87imp7tz46.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).