Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 08:15:52 -0600
From:   David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
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: <Y8/oGIEjibbbNaE2@maniforge.lan>
References: <20230123171506.71995-1-void@manifault.com>
 <20230123171506.71995-4-void@manifault.com>
 <Y8+FeH7rz8jDTubt@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y8+FeH7rz8jDTubt@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.9 (2022-11-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:15:04PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I don't think this is the way to go.  For one the syntax looks odd,
> and for another count we had a rough agreement at the kernel summit
> to make BPF kfuncs look more like export symbols.
> 
> So can you please try to instad make this a EXPORT_SYMBOL_BPF that
> looks and feels more like EXPORT_SYMBOL instead?

Yeah, that matches what others (Daniel and Jon) have suggested in
another thread. I'll echo what I said in [0], which is essentially that
I agree with you all that something which more closely resembles
EXPORT_SYMBOL* is a better approach, and am fine with tabling this for
now until I have a bit more bandwidth to work on something that's a more
complete / appropriate solution.

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y88sMlmrq0wCFSRP@maniforge.lan/

Thanks for the review! Will CC you on the v3, whenever that is.

- David