[PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Change insn_offset to insn_off in bpf_func_info

[Martin KaFai Lau]

The later patch will introduce "struct bpf_line_info" which
has member "line_off" and "file_off" referring back to the
string section in btf.  The line_"off" and file_"off"
are more consistent to the naming convention in btf.h that
means "offset" (e.g. name_off in "struct btf_type").

The to-be-added "struct bpf_line_info" also has another
member, "insn_off" which is the same as the "insn_offset"
in "struct bpf_func_info".  Hence, this patch renames "insn_offset"
to "insn_off" for "struct bpf_func_info".

Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com>
---
 include/uapi/linux/bpf.h |  2 +-
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c    | 18 +++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
index c8e1eeee2c5f..a84fd232d934 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
@@ -2991,7 +2991,7 @@ struct bpf_flow_keys {
 };
 
 struct bpf_func_info {
-       __u32   insn_offset;
+       __u32   insn_off;
        __u32   type_id;
 };
 
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 71988337ac14..7658c61c1a88 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -4707,24 +4707,24 @@ static int check_btf_func(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct 
bpf_verifier_env *env,
                        goto free_btf;
                }
 
-               /* check insn_offset */
+               /* check insn_off */
                if (i == 0) {
-                       if (krecord[i].insn_offset) {
+                       if (krecord[i].insn_off) {
                                verbose(env,
-                                       "nonzero insn_offset %u for the first 
func info record",
-                                       krecord[i].insn_offset);
+                                       "nonzero insn_off %u for the first func 
info record",
+                                       krecord[i].insn_off);
                                ret = -EINVAL;
                                goto free_btf;
                        }
-               } else if (krecord[i].insn_offset <= prev_offset) {
+               } else if (krecord[i].insn_off <= prev_offset) {
                        verbose(env,
                                "same or smaller insn offset (%u) than previous 
func info record (%u)",
-                               krecord[i].insn_offset, prev_offset);
+                               krecord[i].insn_off, prev_offset);
                        ret = -EINVAL;
                        goto free_btf;
                }
 
-               if (env->subprog_info[i].start != krecord[i].insn_offset) {
+               if (env->subprog_info[i].start != krecord[i].insn_off) {
                        verbose(env, "func_info BTF section doesn't match 
subprog layout in BPF program\n");
                        ret = -EINVAL;
                        goto free_btf;
@@ -4739,7 +4739,7 @@ static int check_btf_func(struct bpf_prog *prog, struct 
bpf_verifier_env *env,
                        goto free_btf;
                }
 
-               prev_offset = krecord[i].insn_offset;
+               prev_offset = krecord[i].insn_off;
                urecord += urec_size;
        }
 
@@ -4762,7 +4762,7 @@ static void adjust_btf_func(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
                return;
 
        for (i = 0; i < env->subprog_cnt; i++)
-               env->prog->aux->func_info[i].insn_offset = 
env->subprog_info[i].start;
+               env->prog->aux->func_info[i].insn_off = 
env->subprog_info[i].start;
 }
 
 /* check %cur's range satisfies %old's */
-- 
2.17.1