Em Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 11:20:44PM +0000, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> On 2/1/19 3:10 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:47:31AM -0800, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> >> @@ -698,13 +695,13 @@ struct btf_ext *btf_ext__new(__u8 *data, __u32 size,
> >> btf_print_fn_t err_log)
> >> if (!btf_ext)
> >> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >>
> >> - err = btf_ext_copy_func_info(btf_ext, data, size, err_log);
> >> + err = btf_ext_copy_func_info(btf_ext, data, size);
> >> if (err) {
> >> btf_ext__free(btf_ext);
> >
> > One thing I noticed whas that the class + __ + method is not being
> > consistently followed, will this be dealt with in a followup patch, i.e.
> > to make this consistently use the format used in the
> > btf_ext__free(btf_ext) case?
>
> Currently, the API functions have both +_+ and +__+ method names.
> The +_+ is for APIs having a close one-to-one mapping
> to system calls. The +__+ is for APIs a little bit high level.
> Did you find any particular method whose format is not quite right?
Nope, and thanks for the clarification, if I find something else I'll
get in touch,
- Arnaldo
