[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2cf136a4-7f0e-f4b7-1ecb-6cbf6cb6c8ff@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 21:52:58 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/5] Convert iproute2 to use libbpf (WIP)
On 2/3/20 8:41 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 5:46 PM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/3/20 5:56 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>> Great! Just to disambiguate and make sure we are in agreement, my hope
>>> here is that iproute2 can completely delegate to libbpf all the ELF
>>>
>>
>> iproute2 needs to compile and continue working as is when libbpf is not
>> available. e.g., add check in configure to define HAVE_LIBBPF and move
>> the existing code and move under else branch.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to statically compile against libbpf in this
> case and get rid a lot of BPF-related code and simplify the rest of
> it? This can be easily done by using libbpf through submodule, the
> same way as BCC and pahole do it.
>
iproute2 compiles today and runs on older distributions and older
distributions with newer kernels. That needs to hold true after the move
to libbpf.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists