Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/7] libbpf: Extract BTF type remapping logic into helper function

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 2025-11-05 at 10:20 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

[...]

> You don't like that I ask people to improve implementation?

Not at all.

> You don't like the implementation itself? Or are you suggesting that
> we should add a "generic" C implementation of
> lower_bound/upper_bound and use callbacks for comparison logic? What
> are you ranting about, exactly?

Actually, having it as a static inline function in a header would be
nice. I just tried that, and gcc is perfectly capable of inlining the
comparison function in -O2 mode.

I'm ranting about patch #5 being 101 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
and patch #4 being 119 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-),
while doing exactly the same thing.

And yes, this copy of binary search routine probably won't ever
change. But changes to the comparator logic are pretty much possible,
if we decide to include 'kind' as a secondary key one day.
And that change will have to happen twice.

> As I said, once binary search (of whatever kind, bounds or exact) is
> written for something like this, it doesn't have to ever be modified.
> I don't see this as a maintainability hurdle at all. But sharing code
> between libbpf and kernel is something to be avoided. Look at #ifdef
> __KERNEL__ sections of relo_core.c as one reason why.