> On Sep 29, 2020, at 12:28 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. BPF_F_PRESERVE_ELEMS sounds best to me. I will go ahead with it. Thanks, Song
