On Thu, 2024-09-19 at 06:25 +0200, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: [...] > Nowadays the expectation is that the BPF program will have a valid > .BTF section, so even though .BTF is "optional", I think it's fine to > emit a warning for that case (any reasonably recent Clang will produce > valid BTF). > > Ihor's patch is fixing the situation with an outdated host kernel that > doesn't understand BTF. libbpf will try to "upload" the program's BTF, > but if that fails and the BPF object doesn't use any features that > require having BTF uploaded, then it's just an information message to > the user, but otherwise can be ignored. > > tl;dr, I think Ihor's patch is fine and sufficient. bpf-next is > closed, will apply when it reopens. Understood, thank you for explaining.
