On 16 November 2016 at 19:39, Wangnan (F) <wangn...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > On 2016/11/17 10:46, Joe Stringer wrote: >> >> On 16 November 2016 at 18:10, Wangnan (F) <wangn...@huawei.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm also working on improving bpf.c. Please have a look at: >>> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/14/1078 >>> >>> Since bpf.c is simple, I think we can add more functions and fixes >>> gradually, instead of a full copy. >>> >>> See my inline comment below. >> >> Ah, I missed this, my apologies. It looks like it will provide much of >> what I need, I can reassess this patch with your series in mind. >> >> One comment though for your patch (I don't have the original thread to >> respond to unfortunately): The map_pin and map_get functions in your >> patch series can be used to pin progs too, so maybe there is a better >> name? You'll see that this patch uses bpf_obj_{pin,get}() - although I >> wouldn't want those to be confused with the libbpf.c objects so maybe >> there's a clearer name that could be used. >> >> I also have some patches to rework the samples/bpf/* code to use >> libbpf instead of the sample code that is there, is it worth me >> submitting that? It will need to wait for your patch to go in, plus a >> merge with davem's tree. >> > I'm happy to see you are trying to replace samples/bpf 's own > libbpf with tools/lib/bpf. I think you can submit your work > on libbpf and patches on samples together if they are ready. > Arnaldo can pick up patches good for him, and you can improve > other patches based on his newest branch.
I'll look into it.
