On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 5:59 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 06:46:14PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > SEC("raw_tp/bpf_sidecar_test_read")
> > -int BPF_PROG(test_core_module,
> > +int BPF_PROG(test_core_module_probed,
> > struct task_struct *task,
> > struct bpf_sidecar_test_read_ctx *read_ctx)
> > {
> > @@ -64,3 +64,33 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_core_module,
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +
> > +SEC("tp_btf/bpf_sidecar_test_read")
> > +int BPF_PROG(test_core_module_direct,
> > + struct task_struct *task,
> > + struct bpf_sidecar_test_read_ctx *read_ctx)
>
> "sidecar" is such an overused name.
How about "sidekick"? :) Its definition matches quite closely for what
we are doing with it ("person's assistant or close associate,
especially one who has less authority than that person.")?
But if you still hate it, I can call it just "bpf_selftest" or
"bpf_test" or "bpf_testmod", however boring that is... ;)
> I didn't like it earlier, but seeing that it here again and again I couldn't help it.
> Could you please pick a different name for kernel module?
> It's just a kernel module for testing. Just call it so. No need for fancy name.
