On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 12:50 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > But here you go if you want to play with it ([0]). > > And yes, "visited" marks are the solution, but I was thinking that if > we implement a pre-processing deduplication step as we discussed > offline, we won't need to do any of this, so didn't want to pursue > this further. But we can talk about this, of course. So far this > generality doesn't buy us anything, I got byte-for-byte identical > bpf_testmod.ko with Alan's and my changes all the same. > > [0] https://gist.github.com/anakryiko/fd1c84dcad91141d27d8bd33453521d1 I like it. I think it's worth following up with that. Why do you think max_depth is not enough? Because of btf_dedup_identical_types -> btf_dedup_identical_structs -> btf_dedup_identical_types ? Then pass &max_depth from btf_dedup_is_equiv() ? The visited mark seems overkill.
