On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:20 AM grantseltzer <grantseltzer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This adds rst files containing documentation for libbpf. This includes > the addition of libbpf_api.rst which pulls comment documentation from > header files in libbpf under tools/lib/bpf/. The comment docs would be > of the standard kernel doc format. > > Signed-off-by: grantseltzer <grantseltzer@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/bpf/index.rst | 13 +++++++ > Documentation/bpf/libbpf.rst | 14 +++++++ > Documentation/bpf/libbpf_api.rst | 27 ++++++++++++++ > Documentation/bpf/libbpf_build.rst | 37 +++++++++++++++++++ Didn't we agree to have docs under Documentation/bpf/libbpf? That should make it clear that each is libbpf-specific and probably would make copying/syncing easier. Plus it will be a libbpf sub-section in the docs, no? > .../bpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst | 32 +++++++--------- > 5 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/bpf/libbpf.rst > create mode 100644 Documentation/bpf/libbpf_api.rst > create mode 100644 Documentation/bpf/libbpf_build.rst > rename tools/lib/bpf/README.rst => Documentation/bpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst (89%) > > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/index.rst b/Documentation/bpf/index.rst > index a702f67dd..44f646735 100644 > --- a/Documentation/bpf/index.rst > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/index.rst > @@ -12,6 +12,19 @@ BPF instruction-set. > The Cilium project also maintains a `BPF and XDP Reference Guide`_ > that goes into great technical depth about the BPF Architecture. > > +libbpf > +====== > + > +Libbpf is a userspace library for loading and interacting with bpf programs. > + > +.. toctree:: > + :maxdepth: 1 > + > + libbpf > + libbpf_api > + libbpf_build > + libbpf_naming_convention > + > BPF Type Format (BTF) > ===================== > > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/libbpf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf.rst > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000..2e62cadee > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 Should we use dual-license LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause like the rest of libbpf? > + > +libbpf > +====== > + > +This is documentation for libbpf, a userspace library for loading and > +interacting with bpf programs. > + [...] > + $ cd src > + $ PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/build/root/lib64/pkgconfig DESTDIR=/build/root make > \ No newline at end of file > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/README.rst b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst > similarity index 89% > rename from tools/lib/bpf/README.rst > rename to Documentation/bpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst > index 8928f7787..b6dc5c592 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/README.rst > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > -.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 I don't think we can just easily re-license without asking original contributor. But see above, I think we should stick to the dual-license to stay consistent with libbpf sources? [...]
