> On Sep 30, 2019, at 4:27 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. A better approach is to modify BPF_CORE_READ in selftests before moving it to libbpf. But I am ok with current approach as-is. Song
