Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/2] bpf: explicitly define BPF_FUNC_xxx integer values

[patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org]

Hello:

This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 21:24:51 -0700 you wrote:
> Historically enum bpf_func_id's BPF_FUNC_xxx enumerators relied on
> implicit sequential values being assigned by compiler. This is
> convenient, as new BPF helpers are always added at the very end, but it
> also has its downsides, some of them being:
> 
>   - with over 200 helpers now it's very hard to know what's each helper's ID,
>     which is often important to know when working with BPF assembly (e.g.,
>     by dumping raw bpf assembly instructions with llvm-objdump -d
>     command). it's possible to work around this by looking into vmlinux.h,
>     dumping /sys/btf/kernel/vmlinux, looking at libbpf-provided
>     bpf_helper_defs.h, etc. But it always feels like an unnecessary step
>     and one should be able to quickly figure this out from UAPI header.
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [v2,bpf-next,1/2] bpf: explicitly define BPF_FUNC_xxx integer values
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/8a76145a2ec2
  - [v2,bpf-next,2/2] scripts/bpf_doc.py: update logic to not assume sequential enum values
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/ce3e44a09dce

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html