Re: [PATCH v12 02/10] btf: Handle dynamic pointer parameter in kfuncs

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 05:34:57PM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 17:43 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 08:46:14AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:16:14PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 9:54 PM Jarkko Sakkinen <
> > > > jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > -static bool is_dynptr_reg_valid_init(struct bpf_verifier_env
> > > > > > *env, struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
> > > > > > -                                  enum bpf_arg_type
> > > > > > arg_type)
> > > > > > +bool is_dynptr_reg_valid_init(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
> > > > > > struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
> > > > > > +                           enum bpf_arg_type arg_type)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >       struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, reg);
> > > > > >       int spi = get_spi(reg->off);
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Might be niticking but generally I'd consider splitting
> > > > > exports as commits of their own.
> > > > 
> > > > -static bool
> > > > +bool
> > > > 
> > > > into a separate commit?
> > > > 
> > > > I guess it makes sense for people whose salary depends on
> > > > number of commits.
> > > > We don't play these games.
> > > 
> > > What kind of argument is that anyway.
> > 
> > "Separate each *logical change* into a separate patch." [*]
> 
> The logical change, as per the patch subject, is allowing the
> possibility of including eBPF dynamic pointers in a kfunc definition.
> It requires to call an existing function that was already defined
> elsewhere.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see only exporting a function definition
> to an include file as a logical change. To me, the changes in this
> patch are clearly connected. Or even better, they tell why the function
> definition has been exported, that would not appear if moving the
> function definition is a standalone patch.
> 
> > 
> > To add, generally any user space visible space should be an
> > isolated patch.
> 
> As far as I understood, definitions visible to user space should be in
> include/uapi.

It does change e.g. the output of kallsyms.

It's not ABI but it's still user space visble.

> 
> > 
> > Please, stop posting nonsense.
> 
> If I may, saying this does not encourage people to try to submit their
> code. I feel it is a bit strong, and I kindly ask you to express your
> opinion in a more gentle way.

I agree. That's why I was wondering what is this nonsense
about salary and games.

BR, Jarkko