ebpf: create function prototypes in all headers

[rafaeldtinoco]

commit f2feed0
Author: Rafael David Tinoco rafaeldtinoco@gmail.com
Date: Mon May 22 14:09:18 2023

ebpf: start using eBPF own macros

Use already provided macros for accessing types and fields:

1. allows better type casting instead of relying on (void *).
2. allows multiple fields accessible in a single step.

Note: This change was made possible after non CO-RE code was dropped.

Fixes: #898

commit ec16789
Author: Rafael David Tinoco rafaeldtinoco@gmail.com
Date: Mon May 22 06:37:03 2023

ebpf: create function prototypes in all headers

Fixes: #2576

[AlonZivony]

Looks great :)

[AlonZivony]

@rafaeldtinoco, don't you think we should move the functions documentation to the header file?

[yanivagman]

personally I'm not in favor of adding such a macro which I think makes the code weird and less readable

[rafaeldtinoco]

@AlonZivony what's your take on this ? I'm ok with both and I can revert to what @yanivagman is saying.

My point: Just tried to reduce the line width for readability. I can use "static __always_inline" in all places again, but then the arguments for the prototypes get very far on the right on the editor's screen.

I usually tend to think an 80 cols approach is optimal, and 100 cols is “acceptable”. Pushing farther than 90, or 100 cols, a line, is way too much IMO.

[AlonZivony]

I am for the change, as we declare all functions like this and I don't really think its important to see it all.
It does make the code less readable for people outside of the project. I don't think it is that hard though.

I do think that sai is not so clear, as the initial letters makes sense only after reading the macro.
Maybe change it to something like def or func, to make it clear that its the standard way to declare functions in our eBPF code?

[rafaeldtinoco]

Ok, makes sense for me. I'll try to rename it and we can all agree on the next change (or not, lets see).

[rafaeldtinoco]

statfunc it is then. Looks much better indeed.

[rafaeldtinoco]

@yanivagman let me know if you're +1 with the rename, please.

[rafaeldtinoco]

@rafaeldtinoco, don't you think we should move the functions documentation to the header file?

Hum, yep, possibly. Maybe "the next change" ? I think it might be good.

[rafaeldtinoco]

Integration tests are intermittent. Not only in this PR, I keep failing, from time to time:

Its likely related to timeouts when pulling alpine latest image.

[geyslan]

Integration tests are intermittent. Not only in this PR, I keep failing, from time to time:

Its likely related to timeouts when pulling alpine latest image.

This is already being fixed via #2688, by using timeout per command.

[rafaeldtinoco]

Alright, tests have passed, and E2E tests have also passed. I believe this is good. Waiting for another check.

[rafaeldtinoco]

I've tested this change with E2E tests as well. Thanks Jose!