Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/10] tools: Use consistent libbpf include paths everywhere

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 6:13 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> The recent commit 6910d7d3867a ("selftests/bpf: Ensure bpf_helper_defs.h are
> taken from selftests dir") broke compilation against libbpf if it is installed
> on the system, and $INCLUDEDIR/bpf is not in the include path.
>
> Since having the bpf/ subdir of $INCLUDEDIR in the include path has never been a
> requirement for building against libbpf before, this needs to be fixed. One
> option is to just revert the offending commit and figure out a different way to
> achieve what it aims for. However, this series takes a different approach:
> Changing all in-tree users of libbpf to consistently use a bpf/ prefix in
> #include directives for header files from libbpf.
>
> This turns out to be a somewhat invasive change in the number of files touched;
> however, the actual changes to files are fairly trivial (most of them are simply
> made with 'sed'). Also, this approach has the advantage that it makes external
> and internal users consistent with each other, and ensures no future changes
> breaks things in the same way as the commit referenced above.
>
> The series is split to make the change for one tool subdir at a time, while
> trying not to break the build along the way. It is structured like this:
>
> - Patch 1-2: Trivial fixes to Makefiles for issues I discovered while changing
>   the include paths.
>
> - Patch 3-7: Change the include directives to use the bpf/ prefix, and updates
>   Makefiles to make sure tools/lib/ is part of the include path, but without
>   removing tools/lib/bpf
>
> - Patch 8: Change the bpf_helpers file in libbpf itself to use the bpf/ prefix
>   when including (the original source of breakage).
>
> - Patch 9-10: Remove tools/lib/bpf from include paths to make sure we don't
>   inadvertently re-introduce includes without the bpf/ prefix.
>
> ---

Thanks, Toke, for this clean up! I tested it locally for my set up:
runqslower, bpftool, libbpf, and selftests all build fine, so it looks
good. My only concern is with selftests/bpf Makefile, we shouldn't
build anything outside of selftests/bpf. Let's fix that. Thanks!

>
> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen (10):
>       samples/bpf: Don't try to remove user's homedir on clean
>       tools/bpf/runqslower: Fix override option for VMLINUX_BTF
>       tools/runqslower: Use consistent include paths for libbpf
>       selftests: Use consistent include paths for libbpf
>       bpftool: Use consistent include paths for libbpf
>       perf: Use consistent include paths for libbpf
>       samples/bpf: Use consistent include paths for libbpf
>       libbpf: Fix include of bpf_helpers.h when libbpf is installed on system
>       selftests: Remove tools/lib/bpf from include path
>       tools/runqslower: Remove tools/lib/bpf from include path
>
>

[...]