Hi, On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 16:11:10 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: [...] > Applied, thanks. But would the other similar case be problematic? > > $ rg 'bpf_\b' > bpf_design_QA.rst > 329:NOTE: BPF subsystem specially reserves the 'bpf_' prefix for type names, in > 331:avoid defining types with 'bpf_' prefix to not be broken in future > releases. In > 333:with 'bpf_' prefix. > > libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst > 12:following prefixes: ``bpf_``, ``btf_``, ``libbpf_``, ``btf_dump_``, > 59:described above should have ``libbpf_`` prefix, e.g. Those other cases are all inside double back quotes and construct "inline literal" strings. So they are fine. Which means Bagas could have used the "inline literal" approach instead. Regards, Akira
