On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:58 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:15 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Ah, that is my mistake: I was getting dynamic libbpf symbols with this > >> approach, but that was because I had the version of libbpf.so in my > >> $LIBDIR that had the patch to expose the netlink APIs as versioned > >> symbols; so it was just pulling in everything from the shared library. > >> > >> So what I was going for was exactly what you described above; but it > >> seems that doesn't actually work. Too bad, and sorry for wasting your > >> time on this :/ > > > > bpftool is currently tightly coupled with libbpf and very likely > > in the future the dependency will be even tighter. > > In that sense bpftool is an extension of libbpf and libbpf is an extension > > of bpftool. > > Andrii is working on set of patches to generate user space .c code > > from bpf program. > > bpftool will be generating the code that is specific for the version > > bpftool and for > > the version of libbpf. There will be compatibility layers as usual. > > But in general the situation where a bug in libbpf is so criticial > > that bpftool needs to repackaged is imo less likely than a bug in > > bpftool that will require re-packaging of libbpf. > > bpftool is quite special. It's not a typical user of libbpf. > > The other way around is more correct. libbpf is a user of the code > > that bpftool generates and both depend on each other. > > perf on the other side is what typical user space app that uses > > libbpf will look like. > > I think keeping bpftool in the kernel while packaging libbpf > > out of github was an oversight. > > I think we need to mirror bpftool into github/libbpf as well > > and make sure they stay together. The version of libbpf == version of bpftool. > > Both should come from the same package and so on. > > May be they can be two different packages but > > upgrading one should trigger upgrade of another and vice versa. > > I think one package would be easier though. > > Thoughts? > > Yup, making bpftool explicitly the "libbpf command line interface" makes > sense and would help clarify the relationship between the two. As Jiri > said, we are already moving in that direction packaging-wise... Awesome. Let's figure out the logistics. Should we do: git mv tools/bpf/bpftool/ tools/lib/bpf/ and appropriate adjustment to Makefiles ? or keep it where it is and only add to https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/blob/master/scripts/sync-kernel.sh ?
