From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S934405AbbLQHD7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 17 Dec 2015 02:03:59 -0500
Received: from mail.bmw-carit.de ([62.245.222.98]:48354 "EHLO
	mail.bmw-carit.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932162AbbLQHD6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 17 Dec 2015 02:03:58 -0500
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0C0205.56725E5A.02C5,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] bpf samples: Uses libbpf in tools/lib to do BPF
 operations
To: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com>, <ast@kernel.org>, <agartrell@fb.com>,
        <acme@redhat.com>, <bblanco@plumgrid.com>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        <davem@davemloft.net>, <mingo@kernel.org>, <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        <xiakaixu@huawei.com>, <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        <yang.shi@linaro.org>
References: <1450329794-161948-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>
 <56725868.6080902@bmw-carit.de> <56725B67.2010309@huawei.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <pi3orama@163.com>
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Message-ID: <56725E59.6090507@bmw-carit.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:03:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56725B67.2010309@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 12/17/2015 07:51 AM, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> On 2015/12/17 14:38, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> On 12/17/2015 06:23 AM, Wang Nan wrote:
>>> Since we already have libbpf in tools/lib, we don't need to maintain
>>> another bpf loader and operations library in samples/bpf.
>>>
>>> In patchset:
>>>
>>>   Patch 1/10 - 7/10 improves libbpf, add missing features to support
>>>   samples,
>>>
>>>   Patch 8/10 adds utils.[ch], which creates similar API like old
>>>   bpf_load.c and libbpf.c.
>>>
>>>   Patch 9/10 replace all sampels to use API provides by utils.[ch] and
>>>   libbpf.
>>>
>>>   Patch 10/10 removes unneeded files.
>> Which tree did you use for your patches? I tried to apply them against
>> mainline and net-next which didn't really work out.
> 
> These patches based on Arnaldo's 'perf/core' because of those libbpf
> changes.

Okay, I'll try with this one.

> Which tree is the right one for this? net-next?

The patches I was involved were routed via net-next but I don't know if
that is the right tree for this patch set.

cheers,
daniel