Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: btf: add btf print functionality

[Okash Khawaja <osk@fb.com>]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:33:50PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 03:38:43PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:23:31 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > > > +			else
> > > > > > +				jsonw_printf(jw, "%hhd", *((char *)data));    
> > > > > 
> > > > > ... I think you need to always print a string, and express it as
> > > > > \u00%02hhx for non-printable.    
> > > > Okay that makes sense  
> > > 
> > > Yeah, IDK, char can be used as a byte as well as a string.  In eBPF
> > > it may actually be more likely to just be used as a raw byte buffer...
> > 
> > Actually, what is the definition/purpose of BTF_INT_CHAR?  There seems
> > to be no BTF_INT_SHORT and BTF_INT_SIGNED can simply be of size 8...
> > Is normal int only used for bitfields of size 8 and BTF_INT_CHAR for
> > char variables?
> > 
> > The kernel seems to be rejecting combinations of those flags, is
> > unsigned char going to not be marked as char then?
> BTF_INT_ENOCODING (CHAR/SIGNED/BOOL) is for formatting (e.g. pretty
> print).  It is mainly how CTF is using it also.  Hence, BTF_INT_ENCODINGs
> is not a 1:1 mapping to C integer types.
> The size of an interger is described by BTF_INT_BITS instead.  
> 
> > 
> > > Either way I think it may be nice to keep it consistent, at least for
> > > the JSON output could we do either always ints or always characters?
> >

for !isprint() case, will "\x%02hhx" make more sense?