From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752288AbdBFWoP (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:44:15 -0500 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:33023 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751418AbdBFWoN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:44:13 -0500 Message-ID: <5898FC39.90701@iogearbox.net> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 23:44:09 +0100 From: Daniel Borkmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?TWlja2HDq2wgU2FsYcO8bg==?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 6/7] bpf: Use the bpf_load_program() from the library References: <20170205231428.23846-1-mic@digikod.net> <20170205231428.23846-6-mic@digikod.net> <58989691.7060403@iogearbox.net> <5898CBEF.20201@iogearbox.net> <1136c1a4-1a73-a419-5550-4ebd8aee9d25@digikod.net> In-Reply-To: <1136c1a4-1a73-a419-5550-4ebd8aee9d25@digikod.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/06/2017 10:30 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > On 06/02/2017 20:18, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 02/06/2017 08:16 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >>> On 06/02/2017 16:30, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>>> On 02/06/2017 12:14 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >>>>> Replace bpf_prog_load() with bpf_load_program() calls. >>>>> >>>>> Use the tools include directory instead of the installed one to allow >>>>> builds from other kernels. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün >>>>> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov >>>>> Cc: Daniel Borkmann >>>>> Cc: Shuah Khan >>>>> --- >>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 6 +++++- >>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_sys.h | 21 >>>>> --------------------- >>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tag.c | 6 ++++-- >>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 8 +++++--- >>>>> 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> No objections, but if so, can't we add the remaining missing >>>> pieces to bpf lib, so we can remove bpf_sys.h altogether? >>> >>> OK, I'll send a new patch replacing bpf_sys.h entirely. >> >> Sounds great, thanks! > > Do you prefer a big patch or one for each replaced function? I think it makes sense to split it into two: i) this patch as-is for the prog part, and ii) rest for maps.