Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 1/9] uprobe: Add support for session consumer

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 1:10 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:51:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > +static size_t ri_size(int sessions_cnt)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct return_instance *ri __maybe_unused;
> > > +
> > > +       return sizeof(*ri) + sessions_cnt * sizeof(ri->sessions[0]);
> >
> > just use struct_size()?
>
> Yeah, lets not. This is readable, struct_size() is not.

This hack with __maybe_unused is more readable than the standard
struct_size() helper that was added specifically for cases like this,
really?

I wonder if Kees agrees and whether there are any downsides to using
struct_size()

struct_size(struct return_instance, sessions, sessions_cnt) seems
readable enough to me, in any case.