Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> [Sat, 2020-04-11 23:01 -0700]: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 5:09 PM Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:57 PM Andrey Ignatov <rdna@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> [Fri, 2020-04-10 13:39 -0700]: > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:54 PM Andrey Ignatov <rdna@xxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > > Otherwise, we can teach libbpf to retry program load without expected > > > > attach type for cgroup_skb/egress? > > > > > > Looks like a lot of work compared to simply adding a new section name > > > (or changing existing section if backward compatibility is not a concern > > > here). > > > > > > But that work may work may outweigh inconvenience on user side so no > > > strong preferences. If this is what you were going to do anyway, that > > > may work as well. > > > > Usability trumps extra code in libbpf :) > > [0] should fix this issue without requiring unnecessary new section > definitions. Please take a look and let me know if that won't work for > some reason. > > [0] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_1269400_&d=DwIBaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=3jAokpHyGuCuJ834j-tttQ&m=gwtRFCwg1r2VaTv-GpXKX0e2c-HWZADFO3Ikynunse0&s=eFectzkso2WgfqSeWStlhCk3cEKaJ0_kjcnXhJ8tAFU&e= Thanks Andrii. This looks like a good option to me. I left a few comments on the implementation. -- Andrey Ignatov
