I've read the libbpf code again and I found some other functions with pure 'bpf_' prefix. Should we rename all the functions whose names start with pure 'bpf_'?
Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.v.anan...@yandex.ru> 于2023年3月12日周日 22:02写道： > > 12/03/2023 06:20, J.J. Martzki пишет: > > The library libpcap has their function 'bpf_validate' either so there would > > be a multiple definition issue when linking with librte_bpf.a and libpcap.a > > statically (Same as http://dpdk.org/patch/52631). So just rename the > > function names to avoid such issue. > > > > Signed-off-by: J.J. Martzki <mars14...@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > v4: > > * Update my name. > > v3: > > * Rewrite the commit message. > > v2: > > * Rename all functions in bpf_impl.h. > > * Adjust the commit message. > > --- > > lib/bpf/bpf.c | 6 +++--- > > lib/bpf/bpf_convert.c | 3 --- > > lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h | 10 ++++------ > > lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c | 2 +- > > lib/bpf/bpf_jit_x86.c | 2 +- > > lib/bpf/bpf_load.c | 4 ++-- > > lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c | 2 +- > > 7 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/lib/bpf/bpf.c > > index 1e1dd42a58..f218a8f2b0 100644 > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf.c > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf.c > > @@ -31,14 +31,14 @@ rte_bpf_get_jit(const struct rte_bpf *bpf, struct > > rte_bpf_jit *jit) > > } > > > > int > > -bpf_jit(struct rte_bpf *bpf) > > +rte_bpf_jit(struct rte_bpf *bpf) > > { > > int32_t rc; > > > > #if defined(RTE_ARCH_X86_64) > > - rc = bpf_jit_x86(bpf); > > + rc = rte_bpf_jit_x86(bpf); > > #elif defined(RTE_ARCH_ARM64) > > - rc = bpf_jit_arm64(bpf); > > + rc = rte_bpf_jit_arm64(bpf); > > #else > > rc = -ENOTSUP; > > #endif > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_convert.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_convert.c > > index 9563274c9c..d441be6663 100644 > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_convert.c > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_convert.c > > @@ -23,11 +23,8 @@ > > #include <rte_malloc.h> > > #include <rte_errno.h> > > > > -/* Workaround name conflicts with libpcap */ > > -#define bpf_validate(f, len) bpf_validate_libpcap(f, len) > > #include <pcap/pcap.h> > > #include <pcap/bpf.h> > > -#undef bpf_validate > > > > #include "bpf_impl.h" > > #include "bpf_def.h" > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h > > index b4d8e87c6d..e955b74181 100644 > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h > > @@ -17,12 +17,10 @@ struct rte_bpf { > > uint32_t stack_sz; > > }; > > > > -extern int bpf_validate(struct rte_bpf *bpf); > > - > > -extern int bpf_jit(struct rte_bpf *bpf); > > - > > -extern int bpf_jit_x86(struct rte_bpf *); > > -extern int bpf_jit_arm64(struct rte_bpf *); > > +extern int rte_bpf_validate(struct rte_bpf *bpf); > > +extern int rte_bpf_jit(struct rte_bpf *bpf); > > +extern int rte_bpf_jit_x86(struct rte_bpf *bpf); > > +extern int rte_bpf_jit_arm64(struct rte_bpf *bpf); > > I am still not quite ok to us 'rte_' prefix for internal library > functions... > Might be at least '_rte_', or '_bpf_'? > Another ask - can you put comment here with advise for future > add-ons to avoid pure 'bpf_' prefix and why. > Konstantin > > > > extern int rte_bpf_logtype; > > > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c > > index db79ff7385..d1ab5f8fbf 100644 > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_arm64.c > > @@ -1393,7 +1393,7 @@ emit(struct a64_jit_ctx *ctx, struct rte_bpf *bpf) > > * Produce a native ISA version of the given BPF code. > > */ > > int > > -bpf_jit_arm64(struct rte_bpf *bpf) > > +rte_bpf_jit_arm64(struct rte_bpf *bpf) > > { > > struct a64_jit_ctx ctx; > > size_t size; > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_x86.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_x86.c > > index c1a30e0386..182004ac7d 100644 > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_x86.c > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_jit_x86.c > > @@ -1490,7 +1490,7 @@ emit(struct bpf_jit_state *st, const struct rte_bpf > > *bpf) > > * produce a native ISA version of the given BPF code. > > */ > > int > > -bpf_jit_x86(struct rte_bpf *bpf) > > +rte_bpf_jit_x86(struct rte_bpf *bpf) > > { > > int32_t rc; > > uint32_t i; > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_load.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_load.c > > index 1e17df6ce0..2c4bca3586 100644 > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_load.c > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_load.c > > @@ -108,9 +108,9 @@ rte_bpf_load(const struct rte_bpf_prm *prm) > > return NULL; > > } > > > > - rc = bpf_validate(bpf); > > + rc = rte_bpf_validate(bpf); > > if (rc == 0) { > > - bpf_jit(bpf); > > + rte_bpf_jit(bpf); > > if (mprotect(bpf, bpf->sz, PROT_READ) != 0) > > rc = -ENOMEM; > > } > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c > > index 61cbb42216..2d3d899966 100644 > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c > > @@ -2302,7 +2302,7 @@ evaluate(struct bpf_verifier *bvf) > > } > > > > int > > -bpf_validate(struct rte_bpf *bpf) > > +rte_bpf_validate(struct rte_bpf *bpf) > > { > > int32_t rc; > > struct bpf_verifier bvf; >
