Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 7:49 PM Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hey guys, >> >> It's been a while since we chatted about libxsk move. I believe last >> time we were already almost ready to recommend libxdp for this, but >> I'd like to double-check. Can one of you please own [0], validate that >> whatever APIs are provided by libxdp are equivalent to what libbpf >> provides, and start marking xdk.h APIs as deprecated? Thanks! > > Resending since Gmail had jumped out of plain text mode again. > > No problem, I will own this. I will verify the APIs are the same then > submit a patch marking the ones in libbpf's xsk.h as deprecated. > > One question is what to do with the samples and the selftests for xsk. > They currently rely on libbpf's xsk support. Two options that I see: > > 1: Require libxdp on the system. Do not try to compile the xsk samples > and selftests if libxdp is not available so the rest of the bpf > samples and selftests are not impacted. > 2: Provide a standalone mock-up file of xsk.c and xsk.h that samples > and selftests could use. > > I prefer #1 as it is better for the long-term. #2 means I would have > to maintain that mock-up file as libxdp features are added. Sounds > like double the amount of work to me. Thoughts? I agree #1 is preferable of those two. Another option is to move the samples to the xdp-tools repo instead? Doesn't work for selftests, of course; if it's acceptable to conditionally-compile the XSK tests depending on system library availability that would be fine by me... I pinged the Debian maintainer of libbpf to see if I can get him to pick up libxdp as well, or sponsor me to maintain it. Should make the transition smoother; guess I also need to get hold of the OpenSuse people. -Toke
