Hi Yonghong, On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 10:12:02AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
[...] > > I'm not certain whether using __bpf_kfunc is appropriate here, or if I > > should stick to BPF_CALL to ensure support for accessing bpf_map > > pointers? > > Using helpers (BPF_CALL) is not an option as the whole bpf ecosystem > moves to kfunc mechanism. You can certainly use kfunc with 'struct bpf_map *' > as the argument. For example the following kfunc: > __bpf_kfunc s64 bpf_map_sum_elem_count(const struct bpf_map *map) > in kernel/bpf/map_iter.c Thanks a lot for suggestion. I followed the idea to refactor the patch with kfunc, see the new version: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20250718-perf_aux_pause_resume_bpf_rebase-v2-0-992557b8f...@arm.com/T/#m27a72255c93fa672e164cb87a322b979fe8f9408 Just clarify one thing, I defined the kfunc in new patch: int bpf_perf_event_aux_pause(void *p__map, u64 flags, u32 pause) Unlike your suggestion, I defined the first parameter as "void *p__map" (I refers to bpf_arena_alloc_pages()) rather than "struct bpf_map *map". This is because the BPF program will pass a variable from the map section, rather than passing a map pointer. TBH, I do not watch closely the BPF mailing list, so I may not be fully following the conventions. If anything is incorrect, please correct it as needed. Thank you, Leo
