Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 2/4] net: filter: split filter.h and expose eBPF to user space

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 10/14/2014 10:43 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 10/13/2014 11:49 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 09/03/2014 05:46 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > Ok, given you post the remaining two RFCs later on this window as
> > > > > you indicate, I have no objections:
> > > > >
> > > > > Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Ping, Alexei, are you still sending the patch for bpf_common.h or
> > > > do you want me to take care of this?
> > >
> > > It's not forgotten.
> > > I'm not sending it only because net-next is closed
> > > and it seems to be -next material.
> >
> > Well, the point was since it's UAPI you're modifying, that it needs
> > to be shipped before it first gets exposed to user land ...
> >
> > I think that should be reason enough ... there's no point in doing
> > this at a later point in time.
>
> Moving common #defines from filter.h into bpf_common.h can
> be done at any point in time. For the sake of argument if
> there is an app that includes both filter.h and bpf.h, it will
> continue to work just fine.

Correct, but the argument was that we can _avoid_ this from the
very beginning. Thus, user space applications making use of eBPF
only need to include <linux/bpf.h>, nothing more.

Doing this at any later point in time will just lead to the need
to include both headers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/