On 11/5/22 07:05, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > 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. > Ah! I was oversighted (not seeing these other cases). Should I convert fixed 'bpf_' to inline literals? -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
