On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:18 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/29/20 9:00 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 04:02:10PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > >>> + > >>> +/* Share perf_event among processes */ > >>> + BPF_F_SHARE_PE = (1U << 11), > >> > >> nit but given UAPI: maybe name into something more self-descriptive > >> like BPF_F_SHAREABLE_EVENT ? > > > > I'm not happy with either name. > > It's not about sharing and not really about perf event. > > I think the current behavior of perf_event_array is unusual and surprising. > > Sadly we cannot fix it without breaking user space, so flag is needed. > > How about BPF_F_STICKY_OBJECTS or BPF_F_PRESERVE_OBJECTS > > or the same with s/OBJECTS/FILES/ ? > > Sounds good to me, BPF_F_PRESERVE_OBJECTS or _ENTRIES seems reasonable. May be BPF_F_PRESERVE_ELEMENTS? or _ELEMS ? I think we refer to map elements more often as elements instead of entries. But both _entries and _elems work for me.
