[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZqfXd0FKtXCJ5dwH@ghost>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 10:55:03 -0700
From: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] libbpf: Move opts code into dedicated header
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 10:01:05AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 9:46 AM Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
> > ---
> > tools/include/tools/opts.h | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 1 +
> > tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 1 +
> > tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c | 1 +
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 3 +-
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 48 -----------------------------
> > tools/lib/bpf/linker.c | 1 +
> > tools/lib/bpf/netlink.c | 1 +
> > tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c | 1 +
> > 9 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Nope, sorry, I don't think I want to do this for libbpf. This will
> just make Github synchronization trickier, and I don't really see a
> point.
>
> I'm totally fine with libperf making a copy of these helpers, though
> (this is not complicated or tricky code). I also don't think it will
> change much, so there is little risk of any sort of divergence.
I did this because there were two comments on the previous version of
this patch that asked to change the functions that were copied over. I
had a couple of choices, have the implementations diverge, not change
the implementation in perf to keep it the same as bpf, update both perf
and bpf, or share the implementations. I figured the last option was the
best to avoid immediate divergence. However, both of the comments can be
safely ignored, and also perhaps divergence doesn't matter.
- Charlie
>
> [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists