On Mon, 2018-07-23 at 21:51 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 07/23/2018 06:26 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:58:39 +0100 > > Luca Boccassi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2018-07-23 at 15:49 +0000, 张 敬强 wrote: > > > > 在 2018年7月23日星期一 CST 下午6:50:06，Luca Boccassi 写道： > > > > > Are those headers intended as _public_ API, with all that > > > > > entails > > > > > (no > > > > > breakages, etc etc)? > > > > > > > > bpf_elf.h is installed in the Makefile line 92, so I guess yes. > > > > > > > > bpf_api.h is not installed, but macro `__section_tail` is > > > > useful for > > > > tail calls, which is the only one in that file that may fail > > > > between > > > > different > > > > iproute2 ABI. > > > > According to the Note section in that file, I guess yes. But > > > > upstream > > > > didn't > > > > install it, it really confuse me. Do you know how to contact > > > > upstream > > > > for a > > > > verification? > > > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > > > Is bpf_api.h supposed to be installed by make install? Are > > > bpf_api.h > > > and bpf_elf.h public API that should be shipped by distros? > > > > Not sure how much of BPF iproute2 should be installing, versus > > allowing other > > packages to do it. Daniel? > > The bpf_elf.h should be the only one, which is the case today already > for > the `make install`. The bpf_api.h can be used by BPF program writers, > but > it's not mandatory at all to do this, so I would prefer to leave this > up > to program authors instead and not install it. > > Thanks, > Daniel
Hi Daniel, Thanks. So if the bpf_elf.h API can be considered stable (backward compatibility, etc) then I'll talk with the other Debian maintainers and consider shipping it in Debian 10. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
