Re: [RFC PATCH v3 30/37] perf bpf: Add bpf-loader and open ELF object files

[Wangnan (F)]

On 2015/5/23 1:24, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:56:55AM +0000, Wang Nan wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > +#define DEFINE_PRINT_FN(name, level) \
> > +static int libbpf_##name(const char *fmt, ...)	\
> > +{						\
> > +	va_list args;				\
> > +	int ret;				\
> > +						\
> > +	va_start(args, fmt);			\
> > +	ret = veprintf(level, verbose, pr_fmt(fmt), args);\
> > +	va_end(args);				\
> > +	return ret;				\
> > +}
> > +
> > +DEFINE_PRINT_FN(warning, 0)
> > +DEFINE_PRINT_FN(info, 0)
> > +DEFINE_PRINT_FN(debug, 1)
> > +
> > +static bool libbpf_inited = false;
> > +
> > +#define MAX_OBJECTS	128
> > +
> > +struct {
> > +	struct bpf_object *objects[MAX_OBJECTS];
> > +	size_t nr_objects;
> > +} params;
> apart from that we dont like this kind of static stuff, this seems like
> nice case for having simple handler like 'struct bpf_objects' carrying
> the above data.. what do I miss?

I want to avoid fragmented memory allocation for storing bpf_object 
pointers.
Storing them together into an array can make code simpler. I think I can 
made
something like 'struct bpf_object *bpf_next_object(obj)' in libbpf so we can
iterate over each loaded bpf objects, then this array and nr_objects can be
hidden.

> also params should actually be static right?
>
> jirka


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/