On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 1:18 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 8:01 PM Hao Luo <haoluo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
[...]
> > typedef int (*bpf_iter_attach_target_t)(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index 934a2a8beb87..1c4e1c583880 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -87,10 +87,29 @@ struct bpf_cgroup_storage_key {
> > __u32 attach_type; /* program attach type (enum bpf_attach_type) */
> > };
> >
> > +enum bpf_cgroup_iter_order {
> > + BPF_ITER_ORDER_UNSPEC = 0,
> > + BPF_ITER_SELF_ONLY, /* process only a single object. */
> > + BPF_ITER_DESCENDANTS_PRE, /* walk descendants in pre-order. */
> > + BPF_ITER_DESCENDANTS_POST, /* walk descendants in post-order. */
> > + BPF_ITER_ANCESTORS_UP, /* walk ancestors upward. */
> > +};
>
> just skimming through this, I noticed that we have "enum
> bpf_cgroup_iter_order" (good, I like) but BPF_ITER_xxx with no CGROUP
> part in it (not good, don't like :). All the enumerator names have
> global visibility, so it would probably be best for them to be
> CGROUP-specific and roughly match the enum name itself:
> BPF_CGROUP_ITER_SELF_ONLY, etc?
>
Ack. I will send a patch to fix this right now.
