[PATCH] net/af_xdp: make compatible with libbpf v0.8.0

[Kevin Traynor]

+cc John

For better context, this part of the discussion starts here:
http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/d718d0fe-09a2-8840-e8a4-dd41b732b391@redhat.com/

On 16/03/2023 13:31, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> On 15/03/2023 11:47, Kevin Traynor wrote:
>> On 21/12/2022 09:28, Kevin Traynor wrote:
>>> On 21/12/2022 06:09, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>>
>>>> On 12/20/22 17:05, Kevin Traynor wrote:
>>>>> On 24/06/2022 11:23, Ciara Loftus wrote:
>>>>>> libbpf v0.8.0 deprecates the bpf_get_link_xdp_id and bpf_set_link_xdp_fd
>>>>>> functions. Use meson to detect if libbpf >= v0.7.0 is linked and if
>>>>>> so, use
>>>>>> the recommended replacement functions bpf_xdp_query_id, bpf_xdp_attach
>>>>>> and bpf_xdp_detach which are available to use since libbpf v0.7.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also prevent linking with libbpf versions > v0.8.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Loftus <ciara.loftus at intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andrew/Qi (assuming Ciara is still out of office),
>>>>>
>>>>> I am seeing a similar issue [1] on 21.11 branch with Fedora 37
>>>>> (libbpf-0.8.0-2.fc37.x86_64 and libxdp-1.2.6-1.fc37.x86_64).
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch alone won't apply as there are other dependencies. Looking at
>>>>> the commits in main branch, it seems like I could take all these [2] to
>>>>> resolve the issue. With these cherry-picked the build warnings on Fedora
>>>>> 37 are removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a bit late to take these for DPDK 21.11.3 as I intend to release
>>>>> later today/tomorrow, so it can be resolved for DPDK 21.11.4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do the commits below look ok for backport? Main branch might be able to
>>>>> demand user uses new libbpf/libxdp versions etc, but with stable we
>>>>> never want to break the users existing setup when they upgrade from
>>>>> 2X.11.n to 2X.11.n+1.
>>
>> N.B. ^^^^
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know what you think?
>>>>
>>>> IMO these patches are to to be backported to stable branch.
>>>
>>> Thanks Andrew.
>>>
>>>> However, af_xdp maintainers opinion is more important here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Qi, what do you think?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Qi/Ciara, this issue is still present approaching 21.11.4.
>>
>> What is your opinion on backporting these patches? Please especially
>> note the paragraph above wrt users not being required to upgrade libbpf.
>>
> 
> +Shibin, following discussion in DPDK release meeting.
> 
>> thanks,
>> Kevin.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Kevin.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://paste.centos.org/view/e4eec764
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> 1eb1846b1a net/af_xdp: make compatible with libbpf 0.8.0
>>>>> 5ff3dbe6ce net/af_xdp: add log on XDP program removal failures
>>>>> 0ed0bc3834 net/af_xdp: avoid version-based check for program load
>>>>> e024c7e838 net/af_xdp: avoid version-based check for shared UMEM
>>>>> f76dc44ded net/af_xdp: make clear which libxdp version is required
>>>>> 50b855fc47 net/af_xdp: move XDP library presence flag setting
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>