diff mbox

[v4,09/16] perf tools: Enable indices setting syntax for BPF maps

Message ID 566E480C.7030702@huawei.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Wang Nan Dec. 14, 2015, 4:39 a.m. UTC 
On 2015/12/14 12:28, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:27:36AM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:

>>

>> On 2015/12/12 2:21, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:39:35PM +0800, pi3orama wrote:

>>>>> static u64 (*bpf_ktime_get_ns)(void) =

>>>>>      (void *)5;

>>>>> static int (*bpf_trace_printk)(const char *fmt, int fmt_size, ...) =

>>>>>      (void *)6;

>>>>> static int (*bpf_get_smp_processor_id)(void) =

>>>>>      (void *)8;

>>>>> static int (*bpf_perf_event_output)(void *, struct bpf_map_def *, int,

>>>>> void *, unsigned long) =

>>>>>      (void *)23;

>>>>>

>>>>> Where can I get this magical mistery table? Could this be hidden away in

>>>>> some .h file automagically included in bpf scriptlets so that n00bies

>>>>> like me don't have to be wtf'ing?

>>>>>

>>>> They are function numbers defined in bpf.h and bpf-common.h, but they are Linux

>>>> headers. Directly include them causes many error for llvm. Also, the function

>>>> prototypes are BPF specific and can't included in Linux source. We should have

>>>> a place holds those indices and prototypes together.

>>> wait, what kind of errors?

>>> they are in uapi, so gets installed into /usr/include eventually

>>> and I haven't seen any erros either with gcc or clang.

>>>

>> Sorry. I saw error because I use

>>

>> #include <linux/bpf.h>

>>

>> It is okay if I use

>>

>> #include <uapi/linux/bpf.h>

> then let's use that instead of copy-paste. thanks


And what do you think about the BPF function prototype? Should we put them
into kernel headers? What about::
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf_functions.h 
b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_functions.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3a562d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf_functions.h
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ 
+DEFINE_BPF_FUNC(void *, map_lookup_elem, void *, void *)
+DEFINE_BPF_FUNC(int, map_update_elem, void *, void *, void *, int)
[SNIP]
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 9ea2d22..2f2f05f 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -133,143 +133,23 @@  union bpf_attr {
         };
  } __attribute__((aligned(8)));

+#define DEFINE_BPF_FUNC(rettype, name, arglist...) BPF_FUNC_##name
+
+enum bpf_func_id {
+BPF_FUNC_unspec,
+#include "bpf_functions.h"
+__BPF_FUNC_MAX_ID,
+};
+
+#ifdef __BPF_SOURCE__
+#undef DEFINE_BPF_FUNC
+#define DEFINE_BPF_FUNC(rettype, name, arglist...)     static rettype 
(*name)(arglist) = (void *)BPF_FUNC_##name
+#include "bpf_functions.h"
+#endif
  /* integer value in 'imm' field of BPF_CALL instruction selects which 
helper
   * function eBPF program intends to call
   */
  enum bpf_func_id {
-       BPF_FUNC_unspec,
[SNIP]

And when compiling BPF source file we add a __BPF_SOURCE__ directive?

Thank you.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/