On Fri, 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... Correct. I think I explained the reasons behind, right?
