On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 4:23 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 30, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:55 PM Song Liu <liu.song.a23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:43 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> Make bpf_helpers.h and bpf_endian.h official part of libbpf. Ensure they > >>> are installed along the other libbpf headers. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx> > >> > >> Can we merge/rearrange 2/6 and 3/6, so they is a git-rename instead of > >> many +++ and ---? > > > > I arranged them that way because of Github sync. We don't sync > > selftests/bpf changes to Github, and it causes more churn if commits > > have a mix of libbpf and selftests changes. > > Aha, I missed this point. > > > I didn't modify bpf_helpers.h/bpf_endian.h between those patches, so > > don't worry about reviewing contents ;) > > Well, we need to be careful here. As headers in a library should be > more stable than headers shipped with the code. > > Here, I am a little concerned with the fact that we added BPF_CORE_READ() > to libbpf, and then changed its syntax. This is within one release, so > it is mostly OK. Well, I could bundle bpf_helpers move and fixing up selftests in one commit, but I think it just makes commit unnecessarily big and convoluted. BPF_CORE_READ in previous form was ever only used by selftests, so it was never "released" per se, so it seems fine to do it this way, but let me know if you disagree. > > Thanks, > Song >
