Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 7 Jul 2018 14:30:58 +0100 | From | Okash Khawaja <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: btf: add btf print functionality |
| |
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:33:50PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 03:38:43PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:23:31 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > > + else > > > > > > + jsonw_printf(jw, "%hhd", *((char *)data)); > > > > > > > > > > ... I think you need to always print a string, and express it as > > > > > \u00%02hhx for non-printable. > > > > Okay that makes sense > > > > > > Yeah, IDK, char can be used as a byte as well as a string. In eBPF > > > it may actually be more likely to just be used as a raw byte buffer... > > > > Actually, what is the definition/purpose of BTF_INT_CHAR? There seems > > to be no BTF_INT_SHORT and BTF_INT_SIGNED can simply be of size 8... > > Is normal int only used for bitfields of size 8 and BTF_INT_CHAR for > > char variables? > > > > The kernel seems to be rejecting combinations of those flags, is > > unsigned char going to not be marked as char then? > BTF_INT_ENOCODING (CHAR/SIGNED/BOOL) is for formatting (e.g. pretty > print). It is mainly how CTF is using it also. Hence, BTF_INT_ENCODINGs > is not a 1:1 mapping to C integer types. > The size of an interger is described by BTF_INT_BITS instead. > > > > > > Either way I think it may be nice to keep it consistent, at least for > > > the JSON output could we do either always ints or always characters? > >
for !isprint() case, will "\x%02hhx" make more sense?
| |