> On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:10 AM, Pedro Tammela <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:28 AM Song Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:10 AM, Pedro Tammela <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > 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.
>
I agree. I think adding a comment to the API itself might be useful
specifying 0 and -1 as somewhat special cases.
> Thanks,
> Song
>