On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:37 AM Jakub Sitnicki [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 12:35 AM CEST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

quoted

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 1:32 AM Jakub Sitnicki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Code for printing link attach_type is duplicated in a couple of places, and
likely will be duplicated for future link types as well. Create helpers to
prevent duplication.

Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
---

LGTM, minor nit below.

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <redacted>

quoted

 tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
index 670a561dc31b..1ff416eff3d7 100644
--- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c
+++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c

@@ -62,6 +62,15 @@ show_link_header_json(struct bpf_link_info *info, json_writer_t *wtr)
        jsonw_uint_field(json_wtr, "prog_id", info->prog_id);
 }

+static void show_link_attach_type_json(__u32 attach_type, json_writer_t *wtr)

nit: if you look at jsonw_uint_field/jsonw_string_field, they accept
json_write_t as a first argument, because they are sort of working on
"object" json_writer_t. I think that's good and consistent. No big
deal, but if you can adjust it for consistency, it would be good.

I followed show_link_header_json example here. I'm guessing the
intention was to keep show_link_header_json and show_link_header_plain
consistent, as the former takes an extra arg (wtr).

It's fine, it's a minor point, even though this order feels backwards to me :)

quoted

quoted

+{
+       if (attach_type < ARRAY_SIZE(attach_type_name))
+               jsonw_string_field(wtr, "attach_type",
+                                  attach_type_name[attach_type]);
+       else
+               jsonw_uint_field(wtr, "attach_type", attach_type);
+}
+

[...]