Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/3] bpf: handle 0-sized structs properly

[Tony Ambardar <tony.ambardar@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 09:59:27AM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote:
[...]
> 
> I discussed this with Jose, and the gcc behaviour with zero-sized
> structs varies a bit between architectures. Given that complexity, my
> inclination would be to class functions with 0-sized struct parameters
> as having inconsistent representations. They can then be tackled by
> adding location info on a per-site basis later as part of the
> inline-related work. For now we would just not emit BTF for them, since
> without that site-specific analysis we can't be sure from function
> signature alone where parameters are stored. In practice this means
> leaving one function out of kernel BTF.
> 
> So long story short, I think it might make sense to withdraw this series
> for now and see if we can tweak Tony's patch to class functions with
> 0-sized parameters as inconsistent as the v1 version did, meaning they
> don't get a BTF representation. Thanks!
> 
> Alan
> 
[...]

Agreed that sounds reasonable, and I'd like to resolve the original
problem on 32-bit, so will update my patch and resend.

Thanks,
Tony