Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> +.. [#struct_ops] The ``struct_ops`` attach format is ``struct_ops[.s]/<name>``, but name appears
>> + to be ignored. The attachments are defined in a struct initializer that is
>> + tagged with ``SEC(".struct_ops[.link]")``.
>
> libbpf will happily accept just SEC("struct_ops"). So it would be more
> correct to say that "struct_ops[.s]/<name>" is accepted, but name is
> ignored. But other than that, just SEC("struct_ops") probably makes
> most sense.
I'll reword to recommend SEC("struct_ops"), thanks!
