On 5/10/20 9:09 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 10:07 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
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?
Type names bpf_iter_bpf_map and bpf_iter_foo don't look
unique, but I don't see why they should.
If code really required type name uniqueness __bpf_iter__ prefix
wouldn't provide that property anyway.
I think bpf_iter_ falls into the same category of prefixes like
those used by lsm, trace, struct_ops. Or I could be missing
why iter has to be different.
I will change to bpf_iter_ prefix then. This is hidden from
user anyway.
