Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] bpf: Allow to resolve bpf trampoline in unwind

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 21:45:17 +0100

Björn Töpel <[email-masked]> writes:

> On 2020-02-03 20:58, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> [...]
>>>> ...and FWIW, it would be nice with bpf_dispatcher_<...> entries in kallsyms
>>>
>>> ok so it'd be 'bpf_dispatcher_<name>'
>> 
>> hi,
>> so the only dispatcher is currently defined as:
>>    DEFINE_BPF_DISPATCHER(bpf_dispatcher_xdp)
>> 
>> with the bpf_dispatcher_<name> logic it shows in kallsyms as:
>>    ffffffffa0450000 t bpf_dispatcher_bpf_dispatcher_xdp    [bpf]
>>
>
> Ick! :-P
>
>
>> to fix that, would you guys preffer having:
>>    DEFINE_BPF_DISPATCHER(xdp)
>> 
>> or using the full dispatcher name as kallsyms name?
>> which would require some discipline for future dispatcher names ;-)
>>
>
> I'd prefer the latter, i.e. name "xdp" is shown as bpf_dispatcher_xdp in 
> kallsyms.
>
> ...and if this route is taken, the macros can be changed, so that the 
> trampoline functions are prefixed with "bpf_dispatcher_". Something like 
> this (and also a small '_' cleanup):

+1; and thanks for fixing that _ as well - that was really bothering me :)

-Toke