On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 3:18 AM Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 9:55 AM Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 11:31:57AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > > Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > libbpf APIs for AF_XDP are deprecated starting from v0.7. > > > > Let's move to libxdp. > > > > > > > > The first patch removed the usage of bpf_prog_load_xattr(). As we > > > > will remove the GCC diagnostic declaration in later patches. > > > > > > Kartikeya started working on moving some of the XDP-related samples into > > > the xdp-tools repo[0]; maybe it's better to just include these AF_XDP > > > programs into that instead of adding a build-dep on libxdp to the kernel > > > samples? > > > > OK, makes sense to me. Should we remove these samples after the xdp-tools PR > > merged? What about xdpxceiver.c in selftests/bpf? Should that also be moved to > > xdp-tools? > > Andrii has submitted a patch [1] for moving xsk.[ch] from libbpf to > the xsk selftests so it can be used by xdpxceiver. This is a good idea > since xdpxceiver tests the low level kernel interfaces and should not > be in libxdp. I can also use those files as a start for implementing > control interface tests which are in the planning stages. But the > xdpsock sample shows how to use libxdp to write an AF_XDP program and > belongs more naturally with libxdp. So good that Kartikeya is moving > it over. Thanks! > > Another option would be to keep the xdpsock sample and require libxdp > as in your patch set, but you would have to make sure that everything > else in samples/bpf compiles neatly even if you do not have libxdp. > Test for the presence of libxdp in the Makefile and degrade gracefully > if you do not. But we would then have to freeze the xdpsock app as all > new development of samples should be in libxdp. Or we just turn > xdpsock into a README file and direct people to the samples in libxdp? > What do you think? > I think adding libxdp dependency for samples/bpf is a bad idea. Moving samples to near libxdp makes more sense to me. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220603190155.3924899-2-andrii@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > Thanks > > Hangbin
