> On Sep 23, 2020, at 6:11 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:54 PM Song Liu <songliubrav...@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2020, at 12:31 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakry...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:55 AM Song Liu <songliubrav...@fb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This API supports new field cpu_plus in bpf_attr.test.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubrav...@fb.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>>> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>>> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 +
>>>> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
>>>> index 2baa1308737c8..3228dd60fa32f 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
>>>> @@ -684,7 +684,8 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run(int prog_fd, int repeat, void
>>>> *data, __u32 size,
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -int bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr *test_attr)
>>>> +int bpf_prog_test_run_xattr_opts(struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr *test_attr,
>>>> + const struct bpf_prog_test_run_opts *opts)
>>>
>>> opts are replacement for test_attr, not an addition to it. We chose to
>>> use _xattr suffix for low-level APIs previously, but it's already
>>> "taken". So I'd suggest to go with just bpf_prog_test_run_ops and
>>> have prog_fd as a first argument and then put all the rest of
>>> test_run_attr into opts.
>>
>> One question on this: from the code, most (if not all) of these xxx_opts
>> are used as input only. For example:
>>
>> LIBBPF_API int bpf_prog_bind_map(int prog_fd, int map_fd,
>> const struct bpf_prog_bind_opts *opts);
>>
>> However, bpf_prog_test_run_attr contains both input and output. Do you
>> have any concern we use bpf_prog_test_run_opts for both input and output?
>>
>
> I think it should be ok. opts are about passing optional things in a
> way that would be backward/forward compatible. Whether it's input
> only, output only, or input/output is secondary. We haven't had a need
> for output params yet, so this will be the first, but I think it fits
> here just fine. Just document it in the struct definition clearly and
> that's it. As for the mechanics, we might want to do OPTS_SET() macro,
> that will set some fields only if the user provided enough memory to
> fir that output parameter. That should work here pretty cleanly,
> right?
Yep, just sent v4 with OPTS_SET(). ;)
Thanks,
Song
