From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, 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
In-Reply-To: <Y88sMlmrq0wCFSRP@maniforge.lan>
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>
 <20230123185434.ybfhrmbootcnjuoj@macbook-pro-6.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <ebff2166-8a70-af62-b859-6b5c6b008b36@iogearbox.net>
 <87o7qphspq.fsf@meer.lwn.net> <Y88sMlmrq0wCFSRP@maniforge.lan>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 07:50:31 -0700
Message-ID: <87lelsgf60.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

David Vernet <void@manifault.com> writes:

> I was perhaps a bit naive to think we could just throw a __bpf_kfunc
> macro onto the function signatures and call it a day :-) I think it's
> probably best to table this for now, and either I or someone else can
> come back to it when we have bandwidth to solve the problem more
> appropriately.

Now I feel bad ... I was just tossing out a thought, not wanting to
bikeshed this work into oblivion.  If what you have solves a real
problem and is the best that can be done now, perhaps it should just go
in and a "more appropriate" solution can be adopted later, should
somebody manage to come up with it?

Thanks,

jon