[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0235c3d5-30dd-8c80-b532-00c1590bbb58@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 15:13:17 +0800
From: Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com>
To: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
CC: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
"Martin KaFai Lau" <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] Use lightweigt version of bpftool
On 2022/7/16 1:15, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> On 15/07/2022 17:56, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 7:16 PM Pu Lehui <pulehui@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently, samples/bpf, tools/runqslower and bpf/iterators use bpftool
>>> for vmlinux.h, skeleton, and static linking only. We can uselightweight
>>> bootstrap version of bpftool to handle these, and it will be faster.
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> - make libbpf and bootstrap bpftool independent. and make it simple.
>>>
>>
>> Quentin, does this patch set look good to you?
>
> [Apologies, the mail server has been filtering Pu's emails as spam for
> some reason and I had missed the discussion :s]
>
> Looks OK to me:
> Acked-by: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
>
> Although I'm a bit sorry to see the sharing of libbpf between bpftool
> and libbpf go away. But OK. We can maybe reintroduce it through
> bpftool's Makefile or a separate include Makefile in the future.
>
> Quentin
> .
Hi, Quentin,
so much thanks for your review and ack. and apologies for not receiving
your advice in time due to the misconfiguration of mail server[0]. and
looking forward to your improvement for bpftool.
[0]https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220523152516.7sr247i3bzwhr44w@quack3.lan/
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists