On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 10:01:05AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 9:46 AM Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/include/tools/opts.h | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 1 + > > tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 1 + > > tools/lib/bpf/btf_dump.c | 1 + > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 3 +- > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h | 48 ----------------------------- > > tools/lib/bpf/linker.c | 1 + > > tools/lib/bpf/netlink.c | 1 + > > tools/lib/bpf/ringbuf.c | 1 + > > 9 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-) > > > > Nope, sorry, I don't think I want to do this for libbpf. This will > just make Github synchronization trickier, and I don't really see a > point. > > I'm totally fine with libperf making a copy of these helpers, though > (this is not complicated or tricky code). I also don't think it will > change much, so there is little risk of any sort of divergence. I did this because there were two comments on the previous version of this patch that asked to change the functions that were copied over. I had a couple of choices, have the implementations diverge, not change the implementation in perf to keep it the same as bpf, update both perf and bpf, or share the implementations. I figured the last option was the best to avoid immediate divergence. However, both of the comments can be safely ignored, and also perhaps divergence doesn't matter. - Charlie > > [...]
