On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 6:18 PM Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 15:59:47 +0100 > David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h > > index b483569071..30d83d2b40 100644 > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h > > @@ -27,9 +27,10 @@ int __rte_bpf_jit_x86(struct rte_bpf *bpf); > > int __rte_bpf_jit_arm64(struct rte_bpf *bpf); > > > > extern int rte_bpf_logtype; > > +#define RTE_LOGTYPE_BPF rte_bpf_logtype > > > > -#define RTE_BPF_LOG(lvl, fmt, args...) \ > > - rte_log(RTE_LOG_## lvl, rte_bpf_logtype, fmt, ##args) > > +#define BPF_LOG(lvl, fmt, args...) \ > > + RTE_LOG(lvl, BPF, fmt "\n", ##args) > > Not sure about this. There were some cases where bpf_XXX function > names clashed with those in libpcap. That is probably why the > RTE_BPF_LOG was chosen. >
That would only impact DPDK compilation as it is an internal header, but I get your point. I put a note to update in a next revision. -- David Marchand
