On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:36 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? Ah sure, that works. > > > .../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? This change was not at all intentional. I'll change it back to the dual license. > > > [...]
