[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180204101913.2f0bcb0d@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 10:19:13 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
wangnan0@...wei.com, acme@...hat.com, joe@....org,
jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, eric@...it.org, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH 0/5] tools/libbpf improvements and selftests
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 18:56:14 +0100
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against such tool or test, I think
> it's a great idea and needed. I just think that tools/lib/bpf/ is not
> the right place to put it into lib directory. Right now, as you say,
> it's a mixture of example code on how to use the lib, and tool at the
> same time to dump/test load an object file with libbpf.
Okay, to avoid polluting the directory of the library with test/samples
programs, bow for your suggestion of moving the file to the selftests
directory.
I'm at FOSDEM now, and I cannot send a V2 patch right now... If you
need this in fast (due merge timing), you can make the change yourself
and apply it... else I'll send a V2 on Tuesday.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists