Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:54:34 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To:     David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Cc:     bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
        yhs@meta.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        memxor@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] bpf: Use BPF_KFUNC macro at all kfunc
 definitions
Message-ID: <20230123185434.ybfhrmbootcnjuoj@macbook-pro-6.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20230123171506.71995-1-void@manifault.com>
 <20230123171506.71995-4-void@manifault.com>
 <20230123183305.2mgoxgw4ca3sfk24@macbook-pro-6.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <Y87We/92xiv5/+g+@maniforge.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y87We/92xiv5/+g+@maniforge.lan>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:48:27PM -0600, David Vernet wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 10:33:05AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:15:06AM -0600, David Vernet wrote:
> > > -void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign)
> > > +BPF_KFUNC(void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign))
> > >  {
> > >  	struct btf_struct_meta *meta = meta__ign;
> > >  	u64 size = local_type_id__k;
> > > @@ -1790,7 +1786,7 @@ void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign)
> > >  	return p;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -void bpf_obj_drop_impl(void *p__alloc, void *meta__ign)
> > > +BPF_KFUNC(void bpf_obj_drop_impl(void *p__alloc, void *meta__ign))
> > >  {
> > 
> > The following also works:
> > -BPF_KFUNC(void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign))
> > +BPF_KFUNC(
> > +void *bpf_obj_new_impl(u64 local_type_id__k, void *meta__ign)
> > +)
> > 
> > and it looks little bit cleaner to me.
> > 
> > git grep -A1 BPF_KFUNC
> > can still find all instances of kfuncs.
> > 
> > wdyt?
> 
> I'm fine with putting it on its own line if that's your preference.
> Agreed that it might be a bit cleaner, especially for functions with the
> return type on its own line, so we'd have e.g.:
> 
> BPF_KFUNC(
> struct nf_conn *
> bpf_skb_ct_lookup(struct __sk_buff *skb_ctx, struct bpf_sock_tuple *bpf_tuple,
> 		  u32 tuple__sz, struct bpf_ct_opts *opts, u32 opts__sz)

Yeah. Especially for those.

> ) {
> 
> // ...
> 
> }
> 
> Note the presence of the { on the closing paren. Are you ok with that?
> Otherwise I think it will look a bit odd:

Yep. Good idea. Either ){ or ) { look good to me.

> BPF_KFUNC(
> struct nf_conn *
> bpf_skb_ct_lookup(struct __sk_buff *skb_ctx, struct bpf_sock_tuple *bpf_tuple,
> 		  u32 tuple__sz, struct bpf_ct_opts *opts, u32 opts__sz)
> )
> {
> 
> }
> 
> Thanks,
> David