On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:12 AM -07, John Fastabend wrote: > Geliang Tang wrote: >> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Switch attachments to bpf_link using bpf_program__attach_sockmap() instead >> of bpf_prog_attach(). > > Sorry it took me a few days to get to this. > > Is there a reason to push this to links vs just leave it as is? I had > a plan to port all the test_sockmap tests into prog_tests anyways. I'll > try to push some initial patch next week. > > The one advantage of test_sockmap is we can have it run for longer > runs by pushing different options through so might be worth keeping > just for that. > > If you really want links here I'm OK with that I guess just asking. It was me who suggested the switch to bpf_link in reaction to a series of cleanups to prog_type and prog_attach_type submitted by Geliang. Relevant threads: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/9c10d9f974f07fcb354a43a8eca67acb2fafc587.1715926605.git.tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240522080936.2475833-1-jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/e27d7d0c1e0e79b0acd22ac6ad5d8f9f00225303.1716372485.git.tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx I thought bpf_links added more value than cleaning up "old style" attachments.
