>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 9:20 PM Tyler Retzlaff
> <roret...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > Use RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX instead of RTE_LOG_LINE in macro expansions
> > which allow a prefix and arguments to be inserted into the log line
> > without the need to use the ## args variadic argument pack extension.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com>
> > ---
> > lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > index 1a3d97d..680b1e5 100644
> > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ struct rte_bpf {
> > extern int rte_bpf_logtype;
> > #define RTE_LOGTYPE_BPF rte_bpf_logtype
> >
> > -#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(lvl, fmt, args...) \
> > - RTE_LOG_LINE(lvl, BPF, fmt, ##args)
> > +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> > + RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX(level, BPF, "%s(): ", __func__, __VA_ARGS__)
>
> The patch $topic seems to be removal of variadic argument extension.
> So, I would expect a simple:
> +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> + RTE_LOG_LINE(level, BPF, __VA_ARGS__)
>
> Konstantin, just to be sure, are you ok with this (debug from my pov)
> prefix addition?
>
Thanks David for spotting it, yes somehow I missed that.
Actually yes, yours variant looks correct to me.
Konstantin.
