On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/02/2015 12:51 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> (2015/03/02 20:10), Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>> >>> Well, currently all possible map types (hash table, array map) that >>> would actually call into bpf_register_map_type() are only built when >>> CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL is enabled (see kernel/bpf/Makefile). I don't think >>> new map additions should be added that are not under kernel/bpf/ and/or >>> enabled outside the CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL, as it should be considered >>> part of the eBPF core code. agree. New map types will be only under kernel/bpf/ since this is really core infra that every component should be able to share. >>> The difference here (this patch) is simply that we don't want users to >>> build ifdef spaghetti constructs in user code, so the API that is >>> actually used by eBPF _users_ is being properly ifdef'ed in the headers. +1 >> Or, maybe we'd better move them into new include/linux/bpf_prog.h which >> includes basic include/linux/bpf.h. Then, user can include the bpf_prog.h >> instead of bpf.h. Also, we can check CONFIG_BPF_SYSCAL=y at the top of >> bpf_prog.h. This makes things clearer :) > > I'm preferring the 1st variant, though. We have currently two native eBPF > users, that is, socket filters and tc's cls_bpf (queued in net-next) and > looking at the code/API usage, it's really not that hard, where it would > justify to move this to an extra header file, really. agree. new header seems overkill to fix something that is not an issue today. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
