Hi,
I have few questions about the linux/types.h file used to build bpf
applications. This file gets included by both userspace applications using
libbpf and by bpf programs. E.g., in a userspace application:
foo.c
foo.skel.h
bpf/libbpf.h
linux/bpf.h
linux/types.h
Or in a bpf program:
foo.bpf.c
linux/bpf.h
linux/types.h
libbpf provides its own copy of this file in include/linux/types.h.
As I could understand from the Git history, it was initially copied from
linux include/linux/types.h, but it is now maintained separately.
Both linux bpftool and bpf selftests however are built using another
types.h from tools/include/uapi/linux/types.h.
Is there a reason why bpftool and selftests aren't built using the same
types.h distributed by libbpf?
I also see that the license of the three files differs:
- (libbpf) include/linux/types.h is "LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause"
- (linux) include/linux/types.h is "GPL-2.0"
- (linux) tools/include/uapi/linux/types.h is "GPL-2.0"
Is there a reason why tools/include/uapi/linux/types.h isn't licensed as
"GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note"?
Finally, would it make sense to also have libbpf use
tools/include/uapi/linux/types.h instead of its own copy?
The advantages would be:
- consistency with linux use
- the only architecture specific header included is "asm/bitsperlong.h",
instead of all the ones currently included.
Thanks,
Marco
