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. Thanks for the work!
