> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 01:34:59PM +0000, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> oh, sorry about this. i did not intend to add prefixes where there were
> none. would you like me to restore this with David's suggestion or would
> you like to keep the prefix with __func__?
Please restore as David suggested.
No worries, after all I didn't spot it myself, all kudos goes to David :)
