Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <2c5ba548a8148afa2aa03cc2d9a2d71ca85f74e7.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: do not apply "initialise globals to 0"
 check to BPF progs
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Date:   Tue, 09 Feb 2021 20:12:28 -0800
In-Reply-To: <F5609C13-E5D7-47C2-94C2-F4C2443352C4@fb.com>
References: <20210209211954.490077-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
         <2b4805f6ca2b44f4195b6fdba4f82d5e90ab1989.camel@perches.com>
         <F5609C13-E5D7-47C2-94C2-F4C2443352C4@fb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2021-02-10 at 04:07 +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2021, at 6:10 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-02-09 at 13:19 -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> > > BPF programs explicitly initialise global variables to 0 to make sure
> > > clang (v10 or older) do not put the variables in the common section.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> > 
> > So the patch is OK now, but I have a question about the concept:
> > 
> > Do you mean that these initialized to 0 global variables
> > should go into bss or another section?
> 
> We want these variables to go to bss. 

OK, then the patch is fine.

> > Perhaps it'd be useful to somehow mark variables into specific
> > sections rather than bss when initialized to 0 and data when not
> > initialized to 0.
> 
> Currently, libbpf expects zero initialized global data in bss. This 
> convention works well so far. Is there any reason that we specify 
> section for global data? 

There's no need I know of.

cheers, Joe