On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 3:41 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 11:40 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Wire up BPF cookie passing or raw_tp and tp_btf programs, both in
> > low-level and high-level APIs.
> >
> > Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> But I agree with Alexei regarding 'bpf_raw_tp_open' naming,
> 'bpf_raw_tracepoint_open_opts' is probably better.
So I considered `bpf_raw_tracepoint_open_opts()`, but it felt so
verbose that I decided to shorten it to `bpf_raw_tp_open()`, given we
do have SEC("raw_tp") and that's very recognizable contraction.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to going with
bpf_raw_tracepoint_open_opts(), as I don't think many users will ever
need to call it directly, so verboseness doesn't matter all that much.
Let me know if you still prefer the `bpf_raw_tracepoint_open_opts()` variant.
