On 06/28, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 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.
There are only two hard things in Computer Science :-)
> imo the word 'link' describes the concept better than 'attachment'.
