On 12/17/2015 07:51 AM, Wangnan (F) wrote: > On 2015/12/17 14:38, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> On 12/17/2015 06:23 AM, Wang Nan wrote: >>> Since we already have libbpf in tools/lib, we don't need to maintain >>> another bpf loader and operations library in samples/bpf. >>> >>> In patchset: >>> >>> Patch 1/10 - 7/10 improves libbpf, add missing features to support >>> samples, >>> >>> Patch 8/10 adds utils.[ch], which creates similar API like old >>> bpf_load.c and libbpf.c. >>> >>> Patch 9/10 replace all sampels to use API provides by utils.[ch] and >>> libbpf. >>> >>> Patch 10/10 removes unneeded files. >> Which tree did you use for your patches? I tried to apply them against >> mainline and net-next which didn't really work out. > > These patches based on Arnaldo's 'perf/core' because of those libbpf > changes.
Okay, I'll try with this one. > Which tree is the right one for this? net-next? The patches I was involved were routed via net-next but I don't know if that is the right tree for this patch set. cheers, daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
