On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 11:43:26AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > > > I don't feel great about this libbpf api. bpftool already does > > bpf_obj_get_info_by_fd() for progs and for maps. > > This extra step and extra set of syscalls is redundant work. > > I think it's better to be done as part of bpftool. > > It doesn't quite fit as generic api. > > Why not? It's a helper function on top of already provided api and implemented in the most brute force and inefficient way. bpftool implementation of the same will be more efficient. > so. If we don't have it, people will have to go look at bpftool code, > and we'll end up with copied code snippets, which seems less than ideal. I'd like to see the real use case first before hypothesising.
