Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:39:20 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 02/16] bpf: update MAINTAINERS entry | From | Kees Cook <> |
| |
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com> wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com> >>> --- >>> MAINTAINERS | 7 +++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >>> index ae8cd00215b2..32e24ff46da3 100644 >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>> @@ -1912,6 +1912,13 @@ S: Supported >>> F: drivers/net/bonding/ >>> F: include/uapi/linux/if_bonding.h >>> >>> +BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools) >> >> bikeshed: I feel like this shouldn't be an acronym. Maybe instead: >> >> BERKELEY PACKET FILTER (BPF: Safe dynamic programs and tools) > > pile on :) > > I think eBPF is no longer acronym. 'e' stands for 'extended', > but BPF is no longer 'packet filter' only and definitely not 'berkeley'. > So I'd rather keep BPF as a magic abbreviation without spelling it out, > since full name is historic and no longer meaningful. > I've considered coming up with brand new abbreviation and full name > for this instruction set, but none looked good and all lose in comparison > to 'eBPF' name, which is concise and carries enough historical > references to explain the idea behind new ISA.
Yeah, that's a fair point. No sense in using "BEE PEE EFF" :)
-Kees
-- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security
| |