Joe Stringer <joe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:55 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Joe Stringer <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Given the relative success of the process around bpf-helpers(7) to >> > encourage developers to document their user-facing changes, in this >> > patch series I explore applying this technique to bpf(2) as well. >> > Unfortunately, even with bpf(2) being so out-of-date, there is still a >> > lot of content to convert over. In particular, I've identified at least >> > the following aspects of the bpf syscall which could individually be >> > generated from separate documentation in the header: >> > * BPF syscall commands >> > * BPF map types >> > * BPF program types >> > * BPF attachment points >> >> Does this also include program subtypes (AKA expected_attach_type?) > > I seem to have left my lawyerly "including, but not limited to..." > language at home today ;-) . Of course, I can add that to the list. Great, thanks! :) -Toke
