Re: [PATCH v12 02/10] btf: Handle dynamic pointer parameter in kfuncs

[Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>]

On 8/26/2022 6:41 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:32:54PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 05:34:57PM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 17:43 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 08:46:14AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:16:14PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 9:54 PM Jarkko Sakkinen <
>>>>>> jarkko@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> -static bool is_dynptr_reg_valid_init(struct bpf_verifier_env
>>>>>>>> *env, struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
>>>>>>>> -                                  enum bpf_arg_type
>>>>>>>> arg_type)
>>>>>>>> +bool is_dynptr_reg_valid_init(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>>>>>>>> struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
>>>>>>>> +                           enum bpf_arg_type arg_type)
>>>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>>>        struct bpf_func_state *state = func(env, reg);
>>>>>>>>        int spi = get_spi(reg->off);
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Might be niticking but generally I'd consider splitting
>>>>>>> exports as commits of their own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -static bool
>>>>>> +bool
>>>>>>
>>>>>> into a separate commit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess it makes sense for people whose salary depends on
>>>>>> number of commits.
>>>>>> We don't play these games.
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of argument is that anyway.
>>>>
>>>> "Separate each *logical change* into a separate patch." [*]
>>>
>>> The logical change, as per the patch subject, is allowing the
>>> possibility of including eBPF dynamic pointers in a kfunc definition.
>>> It requires to call an existing function that was already defined
>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see only exporting a function definition
>>> to an include file as a logical change. To me, the changes in this
>>> patch are clearly connected. Or even better, they tell why the function
>>> definition has been exported, that would not appear if moving the
>>> function definition is a standalone patch.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To add, generally any user space visible space should be an
>>>> isolated patch.
>>>
>>> As far as I understood, definitions visible to user space should be in
>>> include/uapi.
>>
>> It does change e.g. the output of kallsyms.
>>
>> It's not ABI but it's still user space visble.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please, stop posting nonsense.
>>>
>>> If I may, saying this does not encourage people to try to submit their
>>> code. I feel it is a bit strong, and I kindly ask you to express your
>>> opinion in a more gentle way.
>>
>> I agree. That's why I was wondering what is this nonsense
>> about salary and games.
> 
> Please denote that I started my review with "Might be nitpicking...".
> 
> It's neither particularly disencouraging nor enforcing for anyone.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, it is not. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Roberto