[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zh3xv04o.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 12:20:55 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Hangbin Liu <haliu@...hat.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
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>,
Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 iproute2-next 0/5] iproute2: add libbpf support
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:
> Back in the days when developing lib/bpf.c, it was explicitly done as
> built-in for iproute2 so that it doesn't take years for users to
> actually get to the point where they can realistically make use of it.
> If we were to extend the internal lib/bpf.c to similar feature state
> as libbpf today, how is that different in the bigger picture compared
> to sync or submodule... so far noone complained about lib/bpf.c.
Except that this whole effort started because lib/bpf.c is slowly
bitrotting into oblivion? If all the tools are dynamically linked
against libbpf, that's only one package the distros have to keep
up-to-date instead of a whole list of tools. How does that make things
*worse*?
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists