Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> So myself and Toke are wearing 'bpf user' hat in that context. >> Both of us indicated that libbpf output is too verbose. >> Your response "just send a patch" is a sure way to turn away more users. >> > > I can't find any such complaint from Toke in this thread, and can't > really recall something like that from recent discussions. I'd rather > have him speak for himself. I think what I said (not in this thread, way back during some other discussion) was that I agreed that libbpf was being too verbose by dumping all the sections and relocations it finds when reading an ELF file, which causes the useful error messages to get lost. I would like to see those messages demoted to another log level, or removed altogether. I won't have time to look more at this right now, but I do plan to circle back to it: I agree with you that we need to make this more friendly. And yes, I also think this should include finding a way to disambiguate between different conditions leading to the same error from the kernel. I've run into a lot of the same issues as you when supporting people who are new to BPF - thank you for the extensive list! -Toke
