> On May 20, 2021, at 9:55 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:53 AM Dmitrii Banshchikov <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 04:54:45AM +0000, Song Liu wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On May 17, 2021, at 3:52 PM, Dmitrii Banshchikov <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> The patchset is based on the patches from David S. Miller [1] and Daniel >>>> Borkmann [2]. >>>> >>>> The main goal of the patchset is to prepare bpfilter for iptables' >>>> configuration blob parsing and code generation. >>>> >>>> The patchset introduces data structures and code for matches, targets, rules >>>> and tables. >>>> >>>> It seems inconvenient to continue to use the same blob internally in bpfilter >>>> in parts other than the blob parsing. That is why a superstructure with native >>>> types is introduced. It provides a more convenient way to iterate over the blob >>>> and limit the crazy structs widespread in the bpfilter code. >>>> >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/902785/ >>> >>> [1] used bpfilter_ prefix on struct definitions, like "struct bpfilter_target" >>> I think we should do the same in this version. (Or were there discussions on >>> removing the prefix?). >> >> There were no discussions about it. >> As those structs are private to bpfilter I assumed that it is >> safe to save some characters. >> I will add the prefix to all internal structs in the next >> iteration. > > For internal types it's ok to skip the prefix otherwise it's too verbose. > In libbpf we skip 'bpf_' prefix in such cases. Do we have plan to put some of this logic in a library? If that is the case, the effort now may save some pain in the future. Thanks, Song
