On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 01:04:48PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 at 12:09, Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> wrote: > > TL;DR: I would not want to see a new top level tools/ directory > > created, and don't think it fits in python/ either; scripts/ is > > a fine home. > > We do already have a tools/ directory, as it happens. > It has two things in it... > > Personally I think tools/ ought to be for the set of > things that we build if you --enable-tools in configure > and which we document in docs/tools. > tools/i386/qemu-vmsr-helper.c fits in that idea of > what the directory is for. tools/ebpf/ does not, but > I don't know enough about what it's for to suggest > a better home for it.
It is the source for the pre-generated ebpf/rss.bpf.skeleton.h file. It should probably just live in epbf/. Ideally we wwould build it by default, but GCC lacked a eBPF backend and we didn't want a hard dep on clang for this. > We might at some point want to tidy up the qemu-io.c, > qemu-bridge-helper.c, etc that currently live in the > top level directory so they go in tools/ instead. Yes, that would be desirable. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
