On 12/11/2018 01:10 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:34:43 +0100, Magnus Karlsson wrote: >> * Is it ok to have static inline functions in this library? They are >> currently static inline for performance reasons, but maybe -flto >> could fix this but not everyone uses this. > > I'd think so, we have few static inlines in kernel uapi headers. > >> * I have included 3 more header files compared to libbpf without AF_XDP >> functionality: barrier.h (for the memory barriers used for correctly >> ordered accesses to the rings) compiler.h (for one unliekly and one >> likely with a tiny performance impact, if any) and list.h (some >> extra functions). What to do with these (and the header files they >> include) as they need to be dual licensed for libbpf.so? > > Indeed, but I think we already have that problem, we include barrier.h > indirectly for the perf ring helper which in turn includes compiler.h > and list.h is included directly.
There's an automated mirror here [0] for stand-alone build and it reimplements the few dependency headers, so generally not an issue. Thanks, Daniel [0] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf
