Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:51:17 -0700 | From | Martin KaFai Lau <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: btf: add btf json print functionality |
| |
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 02:59:35PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:30:53 -0700, Okash Khawaja wrote: > > $ sudo bpftool map dump -p id 14 > > [{ > > "key": 0 > > },{ > > "value": { > > "m": 1, > > "n": 2, > > "o": "c", > > "p": [15,16,17,18,15,16,17,18 > > ], > > "q": [[25,26,27,28,25,26,27,28 > > ],[35,36,37,38,35,36,37,38 > > ],[45,46,47,48,45,46,47,48 > > ],[55,56,57,58,55,56,57,58 > > ] > > ], > > "r": 1, > > "s": 0x7ffff6f70568, > > "t": { > > "x": 5, > > "y": 10 > > }, > > "u": 100, > > "v": 20, > > "w1": 0x7, > > "w2": 0x3 > > } > > } > > ] > > I don't think this format is okay, JSON output is an API you shouldn't > break. You can change the non-JSON output whatever way you like, but > JSON must remain backwards compatible. > > The dump today has object per entry, e.g.: > > { > "key":["0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00", > ], > "value": ["0x02","0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00" > ] > } > > This format must remain, you may only augment it with new fields. E.g.: > > { > "key":["0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00", > ], > "key_struct":{ > "index":0 > }, > "value": ["0x02","0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00","0x00" > ], > "value_struct":{ > "src_ip":2, > "dst_ip:0 > } > } I am not sure how useful to have both "key|value" and "(key|value)_struct" while most people would prefer "key_struct"/"value_struct" if it is available.
How about introducing a new option, like "-b", to print the map with BTF (if available) such that it won't break the existing one (-j or -p) while the "-b" output can keep using the "key" and "value".
The existing json can be kept as is.
> > The name XYZ_struct may not be the best, perhaps you can come up with a > better one? > > Does that make sense? Am I missing what you're doing here? > > One process note - please make sure you run checkpatch.pl --strict on > bpftool patches before posting. > > Thanks for working on this!
| |