> On Jul 7, 2022, at 9:27 PM, Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Since xsk APIs has been removed from libbpf, let's clean > up the bpf docs simutaneously. > > Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst | 13 ++----------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst > index f86360f734a8..c5ac97f3d4c4 100644 > --- a/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst > @@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ described here. It's recommended to follow these conventions whenever a > new function or type is added to keep libbpf API clean and consistent. > > All types and functions provided by libbpf API should have one of the > -following prefixes: ``bpf_``, ``btf_``, ``libbpf_``, ``xsk_``, > -``btf_dump_``, ``ring_buffer_``, ``perf_buffer_``. > +following prefixes: ``bpf_``, ``btf_``, ``libbpf_``, ``btf_dump_``, > +``ring_buffer_``, ``perf_buffer_``. > > System call wrappers > -------------------- > @@ -59,15 +59,6 @@ Auxiliary functions and types that don't fit well in any of categories > described above should have ``libbpf_`` prefix, e.g. > ``libbpf_get_error`` or ``libbpf_prog_type_by_name``. > > -AF_XDP functions > -------------------- > - > -AF_XDP functions should have an ``xsk_`` prefix, e.g. > -``xsk_umem__get_data`` or ``xsk_umem__create``. The interface consists > -of both low-level ring access functions and high-level configuration > -functions. These can be mixed and matched. Note that these functions > -are not reentrant for performance reasons. > - > ABI > --- > > -- > 2.25.1 >
