On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 09:30:21AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 9:24 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 09:09:53AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 5:53 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > hi, > > > > this patchset adds new link type BPF_LINK_TYPE_FPROBE that attaches kprobe > > > > program through fprobe API [1] instroduced by Masami. > > > > > > No new prog type please. > > > I thought I made my reasons clear earlier. > > > It's a multi kprobe. Not a fprobe or any other name. > > > The kernel internal names should not leak into uapi. > > > > > > > well it's not new prog type, it's new link type that allows > > to attach kprobe program to multiple functions > > > > the original change used BPF_LINK_TYPE_RAW_KPROBE, which did not > > seem to fit anymore, so I moved to FPROBE, because that's what > > it is ;-) > > Now I don't like the fprobe name even more. > Why invent new names? It's an ftrace interface. how about ftrace_probe ? > > > but if you don't want new name in uapi we could make this more > > obvious with link name: > > BPF_LINK_TYPE_MULTI_KPROBE > > > > and bpf_attach_type: > > BPF_TRACE_MULTI_KPROBE > > I'd rather get rid of fprobe name first. > Masami, any idea? thanks, jirka
