From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 2/4] net: filter: split filter.h and expose eBPF to user space Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:27:45 +0200 Message-ID: <543D8741.5040107@redhat.com> References: <1409714246-31054-1-git-send-email-ast@plumgrid.com> <1409714246-31054-3-git-send-email-ast@plumgrid.com> <540737DF.1010801@redhat.com> <543C0A2D.5040908@redhat.com> <543CD206.709@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski , Steven Rostedt , Hannes Frederic Sowa , Chema Gonzalez , Eric Dumazet , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Kees Cook , Linux API , Network Development , LKML To: Alexei Starovoitov Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 10/14/2014 10:43 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 10/13/2014 11:49 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Borkmann >>> 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 >>>> >>>> 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 , nothing more. Doing this at any later point in time will just lead to the need to include both headers.