Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: Add '_wait()' and '_nowait()' macros for 'bpf_ring_buffer__poll()'

[Song Liu]

> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:10 AM, Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 'bpf_ring_buffer__poll()' abstracts the polling method, so abstract the
> constants that make the implementation don't wait or wait indefinetly
> for data.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h                                 | 3 +++
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_ringbufs.c    | 2 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c       | 6 +++---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf_multi.c | 4 ++--
> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> index f500621d28e5..3817d84f91c6 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ LIBBPF_API int ring_buffer__poll(struct ring_buffer *rb, int timeout_ms);
> LIBBPF_API int ring_buffer__consume(struct ring_buffer *rb);
> LIBBPF_API int ring_buffer__epoll_fd(const struct ring_buffer *rb);
> 
> +#define ring_buffer__poll_wait(rb) ring_buffer__poll(rb, -1)
> +#define ring_buffer__poll_nowait(rb) ring_buffer__poll(rb, 0)

I think we don't need ring_buffer__poll_wait() as ring_buffer__poll() already 
means "wait for timeout_ms". 

Actually, I think ring_buffer__poll() is enough. ring_buffer__poll_nowait() 
is not that useful either. 

Thanks,
Song