Maybe add more multidimensional arrays? Sent from my iPhone >> On Jun 14, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:30:15PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:17 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:22:59PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:19 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +#define JUMP_TABLE_SYM_PREFIX "jump_table." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> since external tool will be looking at it should it be named >>>>>>>> "bpf_jump_table." to avoid potential name conflicts? >>>>>>>> Or even more unique name? >>>>>>>> Like "bpf_interpreter_jump_table." ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, the point is that it's a generic feature which can also be used any >>>>>>> non-BPF code which might also have a jump table. >>>>>> >>>>>> and you're proposing to name all such jump tables in the kernel >>>>>> as static foo jump_table[] ? >>>>> >>>>> That's the idea. >>>> >>>> Then it needs much wider discussion. >>> >>> Why would it need wider discussion? It only has one user. If you >>> honestly believe that it will be controversial to require future users >>> to call a static jump table "jump_table" then we can have that >>> discussion when it comes up. >> >> It's clearly controversial. >> I nacked it already on pointless name change >> from "jumptable" to "jump_table" and now you're saying >> that no one will complain about "jump_table" name >> for all jump tables in the kernel that will ever appear? > > Let me get this straight. You're saying that "jumptable" and > "bpf_interpreter_jump_table" are both acceptable. > > But NACK to "jump_table". > > Ok... > > -- > Josh
