Re: [PATCH v4] lib/bpf: Rename bpf function names to avoid potential conflict with libpcap

2023-03-13 Thread 马尔斯
Ok, that was my mistake. I’ll send the new patch later :) Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 14, 2023, at 01:22, Stephen Hemminger > wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 17:07:29 + > Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > >>> I've read the libbpf code again and I found some other functions with >>> pure 'bpf_

Re: [PATCH v4] lib/bpf: Rename bpf function names to avoid potential conflict with libpcap

2023-03-13 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 17:07:29 + Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > > I've read the libbpf code again and I found some other functions with > > pure 'bpf_' prefix. Should we rename all the functions whose names > > start with pure 'bpf_'? > > I thought you already prefixed all non-static functions

RE: [PATCH v4] lib/bpf: Rename bpf function names to avoid potential conflict with libpcap

2023-03-13 Thread Konstantin Ananyev
> I've read the libbpf code again and I found some other functions with > pure 'bpf_' prefix. Should we rename all the functions whose names > start with pure 'bpf_'? I thought you already prefixed all non-static functions in the lib... Or do I miss something? > Konstantin Ananyev 于2023年3月12日

Re: [PATCH v4] lib/bpf: Rename bpf function names to avoid potential conflict with libpcap

2023-03-13 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:55:34 +0800 "J.J. Martzki" wrote: > I've read the libbpf code again and I found some other functions with > pure 'bpf_' prefix. Should we rename all the functions whose names > start with pure 'bpf_'? Yes, all visible (ie non-static) functions should use a DPDK style prefi

Re: [PATCH v4] lib/bpf: Rename bpf function names to avoid potential conflict with libpcap

2023-03-13 Thread J.J. Martzki
I've read the libbpf code again and I found some other functions with pure 'bpf_' prefix. Should we rename all the functions whose names start with pure 'bpf_'? Konstantin Ananyev 于2023年3月12日周日 22:02写道： > > 12/03/2023 06:20, J.J. Martzki пишет: > > The library libpcap has their function 'bpf_vali

Re: [PATCH v4] lib/bpf: Rename bpf function names to avoid potential conflict with libpcap

2023-03-12 Thread J.J. Mars
Actually I'm still hesitating about the 'rte_' prefix either. So I'll try a new prefix in the next version, comments will be added together :) Konstantin Ananyev 于2023年3月12日周日 22:02写道： > > 12/03/2023 06:20, J.J. Martzki пишет: > > The library libpcap has their function 'bpf_validate' either so th

Re: [PATCH v4] lib/bpf: Rename bpf function names to avoid potential conflict with libpcap

2023-03-12 Thread Konstantin Ananyev
12/03/2023 06:20, J.J. Martzki пишет: The library libpcap has their function 'bpf_validate' either so there would be a multiple definition issue when linking with librte_bpf.a and libpcap.a statically (Same as http://dpdk.org/patch/52631). So just rename the function names to avoid such issue. S

[PATCH v4] lib/bpf: Rename bpf function names to avoid potential conflict with libpcap

2023-03-11 Thread J.J. Martzki
The library libpcap has their function 'bpf_validate' either so there would be a multiple definition issue when linking with librte_bpf.a and libpcap.a statically (Same as http://dpdk.org/patch/52631). So just rename the function names to avoid such issue. Signed-off-by: J.J. Martzki --- v4: * U