Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] bpftool: fix bpftool build by switching to bpf_object__open_file()

[Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 19:16:45 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:00 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 15:56:04 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:  
> > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > index 43fdbbfe41bb..27da96a797ab 100644
> > > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c
> > > @@ -1092,9 +1092,7 @@ static int do_run(int argc, char **argv)
> > >  static int load_with_options(int argc, char **argv, bool first_prog_only)
> > >  {
> > >       struct bpf_object_load_attr load_attr = { 0 };
> > > -     struct bpf_object_open_attr open_attr = {
> > > -             .prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC,
> > > -     };
> > > +     enum bpf_prog_type common_prog_type = BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC;
> > >       enum bpf_attach_type expected_attach_type;
> > >       struct map_replace *map_replace = NULL;
> > >       struct bpf_program *prog = NULL, *pos;  
> >
> > Please maintain reverse xmas tree..  
> 
> There are exceptions. I don't think it's worth doing everywhere.

Rule #0 stick to the existing code style.

"Previous line of code declaring this variable in a different way was
in this place" is a really weak argument and the only one which can be
made here...