On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:52:18 -0700 sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I guess including cgroup-defs.h/bpf-cgroup-defs.h into bpf.h might still > be somewhat problematic? FWIW including -defs.h into bpf.h should be fine. Obviously fewer cross-header deps the better. But the main point is that we don't want bpf.h to be included in too many places, so opposite direction to what you're asking IIUC.
