From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF6EF1FF0AA for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:58:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8D79121831; Tue, 03 Nov 2026 09:58:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <7826f3d1-4f90-411c-ba45-8bff7ef8a214@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 09:58:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-ebpf v5 0/5] add proxmox-ebpf library To: Thomas Lamprecht , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261102150047.1584789-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> From: Hannes Laimer Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793696326756 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.338 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: MMGBVQL5UNOCT3AXQEDY2JBYH5TZ5J6E X-Message-ID-Hash: MMGBVQL5UNOCT3AXQEDY2JBYH5TZ5J6E X-MailFrom: h.laimer@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2026-11-02 21:19, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 02.11.26 um 16:09 schrieb Hannes Laimer: >> The series applies on top of the scaffolding commit of the repo, which >> is not on the list since it carries the vendored vmlinux.h at ~167k >> lines. It is on my staff repo along with these five commits. > > So that's basically the reasoning to not put this inside the common > proxmox workspace I guess? FWIW; the header is quite nicely tracked > in git and as long as we do not have to highly frequently update it, > putting this inside proxmox workspace might be a nicer trade-of > compared to a dedicated repo. > the reason was mostly because I had this as a binary(kind of like the fw) in the beginning, I just didn't really consider moving it there since. the only thing is that this is the first using clang in its build.rs, so we'd need clang, libbpf-dev and linux-libc-dev as deps for the workspace. don't think that should be a problem though > Oh, and why can't we depend on a proxmox-headers package on build? > Like on proxmox-headers-7.0.14-28-pve? that would allow full control > without checking the headers file in. Or can't that work or is that > not a good fit we don't really use kernel internal stuff, and we probably also won't(or should not) in the future. so the huge vmlinux.h can actually go, but we also don't need proxmox-headers, this is userspace, we shouldn't need version specific things ill prepare a v6 moving it into the proxmox workspace. thanks for taking a look! :)