[bpf-next] bpf: rename MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE into __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE for consistency

Commit Message

Andrii Nakryiko Dec. 6, 2023, 7:09 p.m. UTC

To stay consistent with the naming pattern used for similar cases in BPF
UAPI (__MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE, etc), rename MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE into
__MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE.

Also similar to MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE and MAX_BPF_REG, add:

  #define MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE

Not all __MAX_xxx enums have such #define, so I'm not sure if we should
add it or not, but I figured I'll start with a completely backwards
compatible way, and we can drop that, if necessary.

Also adjust a selftest that used MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE enum.

Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[e-mail]>
---
 include/uapi/linux/bpf.h                            | 4 +++-
 tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h                      | 4 +++-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_str.c | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Yonghong Song Dec. 6, 2023, 9:39 p.m. UTC | #1

On 12/6/23 2:09 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> To stay consistent with the naming pattern used for similar cases in BPF
> UAPI (__MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE, etc), rename MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE into
> __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE.
>
> Also similar to MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE and MAX_BPF_REG, add:
>
>    #define MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE
>
> Not all __MAX_xxx enums have such #define, so I'm not sure if we should
> add it or not, but I figured I'll start with a completely backwards
> compatible way, and we can drop that, if necessary.
>
> Also adjust a selftest that used MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE enum.
>
> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[e-mail]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[e-mail]>

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] Dec. 6, 2023, 10:50 p.m. UTC | #2

Hello:

This patch was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master)
by Alexei Starovoitov <[e-mail]>:

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 11:09:20 -0800 you wrote:
> To stay consistent with the naming pattern used for similar cases in BPF
> UAPI (__MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE, etc), rename MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE into
> __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE.
> 
> Also similar to MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE and MAX_BPF_REG, add:
> 
>   #define MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE
> 
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - [bpf-next] bpf: rename MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE into __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE for consistency
    https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/7065eefb38f1

You are awesome, thank you!

Patch

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 4df2d025c784..e0545201b55f 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -1108,9 +1108,11 @@  enum bpf_link_type {
 	BPF_LINK_TYPE_TCX = 11,
 	BPF_LINK_TYPE_UPROBE_MULTI = 12,
 	BPF_LINK_TYPE_NETKIT = 13,
-	MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE,
+	__MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE,
 };
 
+#define MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE
+
 enum bpf_perf_event_type {
 	BPF_PERF_EVENT_UNSPEC = 0,
 	BPF_PERF_EVENT_UPROBE = 1,
diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index 4df2d025c784..e0545201b55f 100644
--- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -1108,9 +1108,11 @@  enum bpf_link_type {
 	BPF_LINK_TYPE_TCX = 11,
 	BPF_LINK_TYPE_UPROBE_MULTI = 12,
 	BPF_LINK_TYPE_NETKIT = 13,
-	MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE,
+	__MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE,
 };
 
+#define MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE
+
 enum bpf_perf_event_type {
 	BPF_PERF_EVENT_UNSPEC = 0,
 	BPF_PERF_EVENT_UPROBE = 1,
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_str.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_str.c
index 384bc1f7a65e..62ea855ec4d0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_str.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/libbpf_str.c
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@  static void test_libbpf_bpf_link_type_str(void)
 		const char *link_type_str;
 		char buf[256];
 
-		if (link_type == MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE)
+		if (link_type == __MAX_BPF_LINK_TYPE)
 			continue;
 
 		link_type_name = btf__str_by_offset(btf, e->name_off);