[v3,02/16] bpf: stop using variadic argument pack extension

  Use RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX instead of RTE_LOG_LINE in macro expansions
which allow a prefix and arguments to be inserted into the log line
without the need to use the ## args variadic argument pack extension.

Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
---
 lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
  

> Subject: [PATCH v3 02/16] bpf: stop using variadic argument pack extension
> 
> Use RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX instead of RTE_LOG_LINE in macro expansions
> which allow a prefix and arguments to be inserted into the log line
> without the need to use the ## args variadic argument pack extension.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> ---
>  lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> index 1a3d97d..680b1e5 100644
> --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ struct rte_bpf {
>  extern int rte_bpf_logtype;
>  #define RTE_LOGTYPE_BPF rte_bpf_logtype
> 
> -#define	RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(lvl, fmt, args...) \
> -	RTE_LOG_LINE(lvl, BPF, fmt, ##args)
> +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> +	RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX(level, BPF, "%s(): ", __func__, __VA_ARGS__)
> 
>  static inline size_t
>  bpf_size(uint32_t bpf_op_sz)
> --

Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
 

> 1.8.3.1
  

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 9:20 PM Tyler Retzlaff
<roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Use RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX instead of RTE_LOG_LINE in macro expansions
> which allow a prefix and arguments to be inserted into the log line
> without the need to use the ## args variadic argument pack extension.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> ---
>  lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> index 1a3d97d..680b1e5 100644
> --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ struct rte_bpf {
>  extern int rte_bpf_logtype;
>  #define RTE_LOGTYPE_BPF rte_bpf_logtype
>
> -#define        RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(lvl, fmt, args...) \
> -       RTE_LOG_LINE(lvl, BPF, fmt, ##args)
> +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> +       RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX(level, BPF, "%s(): ", __func__, __VA_ARGS__)

The patch $topic seems to be removal of variadic argument extension.
So, I would expect a simple:
+#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
+       RTE_LOG_LINE(level, BPF, __VA_ARGS__)

Konstantin, just to be sure, are you ok with this (debug from my pov)
prefix addition?
  

> 
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 9:20 PM Tyler Retzlaff
> <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > Use RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX instead of RTE_LOG_LINE in macro expansions
> > which allow a prefix and arguments to be inserted into the log line
> > without the need to use the ## args variadic argument pack extension.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > index 1a3d97d..680b1e5 100644
> > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ struct rte_bpf {
> >  extern int rte_bpf_logtype;
> >  #define RTE_LOGTYPE_BPF rte_bpf_logtype
> >
> > -#define        RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(lvl, fmt, args...) \
> > -       RTE_LOG_LINE(lvl, BPF, fmt, ##args)
> > +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> > +       RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX(level, BPF, "%s(): ", __func__, __VA_ARGS__)
> 
> The patch $topic seems to be removal of variadic argument extension.
> So, I would expect a simple:
> +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> +       RTE_LOG_LINE(level, BPF, __VA_ARGS__)
> 
> Konstantin, just to be sure, are you ok with this (debug from my pov)
> prefix addition?
> 

Thanks David for spotting it, yes somehow I missed that.
Actually yes, yours variant looks correct to me.
Konstantin.
  

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 01:34:59PM +0000, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 9:20 PM Tyler Retzlaff
> > <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Use RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX instead of RTE_LOG_LINE in macro expansions
> > > which allow a prefix and arguments to be inserted into the log line
> > > without the need to use the ## args variadic argument pack extension.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > > index 1a3d97d..680b1e5 100644
> > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > > @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ struct rte_bpf {
> > >  extern int rte_bpf_logtype;
> > >  #define RTE_LOGTYPE_BPF rte_bpf_logtype
> > >
> > > -#define        RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(lvl, fmt, args...) \
> > > -       RTE_LOG_LINE(lvl, BPF, fmt, ##args)
> > > +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> > > +       RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX(level, BPF, "%s(): ", __func__, __VA_ARGS__)
> > 
> > The patch $topic seems to be removal of variadic argument extension.
> > So, I would expect a simple:
> > +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> > +       RTE_LOG_LINE(level, BPF, __VA_ARGS__)
> > 
> > Konstantin, just to be sure, are you ok with this (debug from my pov)
> > prefix addition?
> > 
> 
> Thanks David for spotting it, yes somehow I missed that.
> Actually yes, yours variant looks correct to me.
> Konstantin.

oh, sorry about this. i did not intend to add prefixes where there were
none. would you like me to restore this with David's suggestion or would
you like to keep the prefix with __func__?

let me know i'll make an adjustment to the series if necessary.

>
  

> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 01:34:59PM +0000, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 9:20 PM Tyler Retzlaff
> > > <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Use RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX instead of RTE_LOG_LINE in macro expansions
> > > > which allow a prefix and arguments to be inserted into the log line
> > > > without the need to use the ## args variadic argument pack extension.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h | 4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > > > index 1a3d97d..680b1e5 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > > > @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ struct rte_bpf {
> > > >  extern int rte_bpf_logtype;
> > > >  #define RTE_LOGTYPE_BPF rte_bpf_logtype
> > > >
> > > > -#define        RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(lvl, fmt, args...) \
> > > > -       RTE_LOG_LINE(lvl, BPF, fmt, ##args)
> > > > +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> > > > +       RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX(level, BPF, "%s(): ", __func__, __VA_ARGS__)
> > >
> > > The patch $topic seems to be removal of variadic argument extension.
> > > So, I would expect a simple:
> > > +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> > > +       RTE_LOG_LINE(level, BPF, __VA_ARGS__)
> > >
> > > Konstantin, just to be sure, are you ok with this (debug from my pov)
> > > prefix addition?
> > >
> >
> > Thanks David for spotting it, yes somehow I missed that.
> > Actually yes, yours variant looks correct to me.
> > Konstantin.
> 
> oh, sorry about this. i did not intend to add prefixes where there were
> none. would you like me to restore this with David's suggestion or would
> you like to keep the prefix with __func__?

Please restore as David suggested.
No worries, after all I didn't spot it myself, all kudos goes to David :)
  

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 05:27:54PM +0000, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 01:34:59PM +0000, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 9:20 PM Tyler Retzlaff
> > > > <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Use RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX instead of RTE_LOG_LINE in macro expansions
> > > > > which allow a prefix and arguments to be inserted into the log line
> > > > > without the need to use the ## args variadic argument pack extension.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h | 4 ++--
> > > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > > > > index 1a3d97d..680b1e5 100644
> > > > > --- a/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > > > > +++ b/lib/bpf/bpf_impl.h
> > > > > @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ struct rte_bpf {
> > > > >  extern int rte_bpf_logtype;
> > > > >  #define RTE_LOGTYPE_BPF rte_bpf_logtype
> > > > >
> > > > > -#define        RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(lvl, fmt, args...) \
> > > > > -       RTE_LOG_LINE(lvl, BPF, fmt, ##args)
> > > > > +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> > > > > +       RTE_LOG_LINE_PREFIX(level, BPF, "%s(): ", __func__, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > >
> > > > The patch $topic seems to be removal of variadic argument extension.
> > > > So, I would expect a simple:
> > > > +#define RTE_BPF_LOG_LINE(level, ...) \
> > > > +       RTE_LOG_LINE(level, BPF, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > >
> > > > Konstantin, just to be sure, are you ok with this (debug from my pov)
> > > > prefix addition?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks David for spotting it, yes somehow I missed that.
> > > Actually yes, yours variant looks correct to me.
> > > Konstantin.
> > 
> > oh, sorry about this. i did not intend to add prefixes where there were
> > none. would you like me to restore this with David's suggestion or would
> > you like to keep the prefix with __func__?
> 
> Please restore as David suggested.
> No worries, after all I didn't spot it myself, all kudos goes to David :) 

thanks, i'll submit a new rev!

>