On 5/9/20 5:35 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 10:59:17AM -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
@@ -6891,6 +6897,7 @@ static int bpf_object__collect_st_ops_relos(struct bpf_object *obj,
#define BTF_TRACE_PREFIX "btf_trace_"
#define BTF_LSM_PREFIX "bpf_lsm_"
+#define BTF_ITER_PREFIX "__bpf_iter__"
#define BTF_MAX_NAME_SIZE 128
In the kernel source the prefix doesn't stand out, but on libbpf side it looks
inconsistent. May be drop __ prefix and keep one _ in the suffix?
Currently, I have context type as
struct bpf_iter__bpf_map
Based on the above proposal, we will have function name as
bpf_iter_bpf_map
It is quite similar to each other. My current usage to have
__bpf_iter__bpf_map
intends to make func name and struct type name quite different.
Or maybe
bpf_iter__bpf_map vs. bpf_iter_bpf_map
just fine as user should not care about func name
bpf_iter_bpf_map at all?
