On 2/1/19 3:10 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:47:31AM -0800, Yonghong Song escreveu:
>> @@ -698,13 +695,13 @@ struct btf_ext *btf_ext__new(__u8 *data, __u32 size,
>> btf_print_fn_t err_log)
>> if (!btf_ext)
>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>
>> - err = btf_ext_copy_func_info(btf_ext, data, size, err_log);
>> + err = btf_ext_copy_func_info(btf_ext, data, size);
>> if (err) {
>> btf_ext__free(btf_ext);
>
> One thing I noticed whas that the class + __ + method is not being
> consistently followed, will this be dealt with in a followup patch, i.e.
> to make this consistently use the format used in the
> btf_ext__free(btf_ext) case?
Currently, the API functions have both +_+ and +__+ method names.
The +_+ is for APIs having a close one-to-one mapping
to system calls. The +__+ is for APIs a little bit high level.
Did you find any particular method whose format is not quite right?
>
>> return ERR_PTR(err);
>> }
>>
>> - err = btf_ext_copy_line_info(btf_ext, data, size, err_log);
>> + err = btf_ext_copy_line_info(btf_ext, data, size);
>> if (err) {
>> btf_ext__free(btf_ext);
>> return ERR_PTR(err);
>
> - Arnaldo
>
