On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 2:52 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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... ;)
bpf_testmod sounds the best to me :)
