Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/6] resolve_btfids: Introduce enum btf_id_kind

[Ihor Solodrai]

On 12/15/25 6:38 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-12-15 at 18:31 -0800, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
>> On 12/11/25 11:09 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2025-12-05 at 14:30 -0800, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
>>>> Instead of using multiple flags, make struct btf_id tagged with an
>>>> enum value indicating its kind in the context of resolve_btfids.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> (But see a question below).
>>>
>>>> @@ -213,14 +218,19 @@ btf_id__add(struct rb_root *root, char *name, bool unique)
>>>>  			p = &(*p)->rb_left;
>>>>  		else if (cmp > 0)
>>>>  			p = &(*p)->rb_right;
>>>> -		else
>>>> -			return unique ? NULL : id;
>>>> +		else if (kind == BTF_ID_KIND_SYM && id->kind == BTF_ID_KIND_SYM)
>>>
>>> Nit: I'd keep the 'unique' parameter alongside 'kind' and resolve this
>>>      condition on the function callsite.
>>
>> I don't like the boolean args, they're always opaque on the callsite.
>>
>> We want to allow duplicates for _KIND_SYM and forbid for other kinds.
>> Since we are passing the kind from outside, I think it makes sense to
>> check for this inside the function. It makes the usage simpler.
> 
> On the contrary, the callsite knows exactly what it wants:
> unique or non-unique entries. Here you need additional logic
> to figure out the intent.
> 
> Arguably the uniqueness is associated not with entry type,
> but with a particular tree the entry is added to.
> And that is a property of the callsite.

You're right that the uniqueness is associated with a tree.
This means we could even check the kind of the root...

I'm thinking maybe it's cleaner to have btf_id__add() and
btf_id__add_unique(). It can even be a wrapper around btf_id__add()
with a boolean.  wdyt?

> 
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>