On 02/15/2019 07:47 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 2/15/19 9:25 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >> Em Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 05:17:27PM +0000, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu: >>> On 2/14/19 4:47 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >>>> I wonder if we should have a libbtf, with the same licensing as libbpf, >>>> as, for instance, pahole would be interested only in the btf parts, be >>>> it encoding, loading and pretty printing. >>> >>> I don't think it's possible to do such split. >>> .btf.ext section only makes sense together with bpf prog. >> >> Well, that part, that is not about types and only makes sense together >> with the BPF parts could stay in libbpf, no? > > I don't see how. > .btf.ext is using string section of .btf > It's all connected. > > Even if it was possible to somehow split them > I think one big library is better than a bunch of smaller ones. > It's written in C so .text size concern doesn't apply. +1, I also think one single library is much better. Keeps dependency management simple and only after ~3.5 years now mainstream distros have finally started to ship libbpf as a package. Splitting would just create more hassle for users and slow down wider adoption. Thanks, Daniel
