On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 7:16 PM Pu Lehui <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Currently, samples/bpf, tools/runqslower and bpf/iterators use bpftool
> for vmlinux.h, skeleton, and static linking only. We can uselightweight
> bootstrap version of bpftool to handle these, and it will be faster.
>
> v2:
> - make libbpf and bootstrap bpftool independent. and make it simple.
>
Quentin, does this patch set look good to you?
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
>
> Pu Lehui (3):
> samples: bpf: Fix cross-compiling error by using bootstrap bpftool
> tools: runqslower: build and use lightweight bootstrap version of
> bpftool
> bpf: iterators: build and use lightweight bootstrap version of bpftool
>
> kernel/bpf/preload/iterators/Makefile | 10 +++-------
> samples/bpf/Makefile | 10 ++++------
> tools/bpf/runqslower/Makefile | 7 +++----
> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
On 15/07/2022 17:56, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 7:16 PM Pu Lehui <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Currently, samples/bpf, tools/runqslower and bpf/iterators use bpftool
>> for vmlinux.h, skeleton, and static linking only. We can uselightweight
>> bootstrap version of bpftool to handle these, and it will be faster.
>>
>> v2:
>> - make libbpf and bootstrap bpftool independent. and make it simple.
>>
>
> Quentin, does this patch set look good to you?
[Apologies, the mail server has been filtering Pu's emails as spam for
some reason and I had missed the discussion :s]
Looks OK to me:
Acked-by: Quentin Monnet <[email protected]>
Although I'm a bit sorry to see the sharing of libbpf between bpftool
and libbpf go away. But OK. We can maybe reintroduce it through
bpftool's Makefile or a separate include Makefile in the future.
Quentin