On Tue, 2024-03-19 at 09:16 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
> 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.
I'd prefer the longer variant if you don't mind.
I'm a relative beginner to libbpf internals and seeing bpf_raw_tp_open
instead bpf_raw_tracepoint_open_opts kinda broke my intuitive
expectations based on other APIs, so we can use it as a test :)
