On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:14 PM John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > Given introduction of variadic BPF_CORE_READ with slightly different > > syntax and semantics, define CORE_READ, which is a thin wrapper around > > low-level bpf_core_read() macro, which in turn is just a wrapper around > > bpf_probe_read(). BPF_CORE_READ is higher-level variadic macro > > supporting multi-pointer reads and are tested separately. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andr...@fb.com> > > --- > > .../bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_arrays.c | 10 ++++++---- > > .../bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_flavors.c | 8 +++++--- > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_ints.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- > > .../bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_kernel.c | 6 ++++-- > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_misc.c | 8 +++++--- > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_mods.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- > > .../bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_nesting.c | 6 ++++-- > > .../bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_primitives.c | 12 +++++++----- > > .../bpf/progs/test_core_reloc_ptr_as_arr.c | 4 +++- > > 9 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > > > Starting to get many layers of macros here but makes sense here.
Yeah, a bit. I was considering to either switch to bpf_core_read() with explicit sizeof or making bpf_core_read() deriving sizeof(), but didn't because: 1. wanted to keep bpf_core_read() a direct "substitute" for bpf_probe_read() 2. figured one copy-pasted #define for each of few files is small enough price for much more readable tests > > Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com> Thanks for review!
