On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:28 AM Song Liu songliubraving@fb.com wrote:
On Mar 28, 2021, at 9:10 AM, Pedro Tammela pctammela@gmail.com wrote:
'bpf_ring_buffer__poll()' abstracts the polling method, so abstract the constants that make the implementation don't wait or wait indefinetly for data.
Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela pctammela@mojatatu.com
tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 3 +++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_ringbufs.c | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c | 6 +++--- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf_multi.c | 4 ++-- 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h index f500621d28e5..3817d84f91c6 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ LIBBPF_API int ring_buffer__poll(struct ring_buffer *rb, int timeout_ms); LIBBPF_API int ring_buffer__consume(struct ring_buffer *rb); LIBBPF_API int ring_buffer__epoll_fd(const struct ring_buffer *rb);
+#define ring_buffer__poll_wait(rb) ring_buffer__poll(rb, -1) +#define ring_buffer__poll_nowait(rb) ring_buffer__poll(rb, 0)
I think we don't need ring_buffer__poll_wait() as ring_buffer__poll() already means "wait for timeout_ms".
Actually, I think ring_buffer__poll() is enough. ring_buffer__poll_nowait() is not that useful either.
I agree. I think adding a comment to the API itself might be useful specifying 0 and -1 as somewhat special cases.
Thanks, Song