On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:09:02AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > Thanks for the cleanup! For the code occurrences with 'internal BPF', I would > just drop the term 'internal' so it's only 'BPF' which is consistent with the > rest in the kernel. Usually eBPF is implied given all the old cBPF stuff is > translated to it anyway. Bit confusing, but that's where it converged over the > years in the kernel including git log. eBPF vs cBPF unless it's explicitly > intended to be called out (like in the filter.rst docs). Ok. > nit: We can probably just drop that comment since it's not very useful anyway > and already implied by the function name. Sounds good.
