On 6/28/19 10:45 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +struct bpf_link {
>>> Maybe call it bpf_attachment? You call the bpf_program__attach_to_blah
>>> and you get an attachment?
>>
>> I wanted to keep it as short as possible, bpf_attachment is way too
>> long (it's also why as an alternative I've proposed bpf_assoc, not
>> bpf_association, but bpf_attach isn't great shortening).
> Why do you want to keep it short? We have far longer names than
> bpf_attachment in libbpf. That shouldn't be a big concern.
Naming is hard. I also prefer short.
imo the word 'link' describes the concept better than 'attachment'.
