Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 30 Aug 2014 00:24:32 +0200 | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 net-next 2/2] net: filter: split filter.h and expose eBPF to user space |
| |
On 08/29/2014 08:02 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 08/27/2014 10:37 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> >>> allow user space to generate eBPF programs >>> >>> uapi/linux/bpf.h: eBPF instruction set definition >>> >>> linux/filter.h: the rest >> >> Very sorry for being late, but just a thought since we're touching user >> space headers anyway ... >> >> Wouldn't it be more consistent to have it organized as follows ... >> >> - uapi/linux/bpf.h : classic BPF instruction set parts only >> - uapi/linux/ebpf.h : eBPF instruction set definition (which also >> includes uapi/linux/bpf.h though) >> ... and have ... >> >> - uapi/linux/filter.h : just include uapi/linux/bpf.h but rest is empty >> >> That way, it would be more consistent ... >> >> Old legacy application can stay with linux/filter.h; new applications >> based on their needs can choose between linux/{e,}bpf.h and in the kernel, >> we can just include linux/ebpf.h. >> >> Right now, it seems, an eBPF user space program would need to include >> 2 header files in user space (linux/filter.h, linux/bpf.h) which I find >> a bit confusing. > > It's been bugging me as well, but I suspect having it the way you > described won't work. Mainly because we cannot do include <uapi/..> > inside uapi/*.h, so we would need to do include <linux/bpf.h> > inside uapi/linux/filter.h, but that will cause serious include path > confusion. That was the reason I didn't simply do include <linux/filter.h> > inside uapi/linux/bpf.h > > Also I really dislike 'ebpf' name in all lower case. If we make such header > file name, we would need to rename all macros and function names > to EBPF_... which I find very ugly looking. I think all good abbreviations are > three letters :)
I don't think we would have to name defines that way, really, that would be terrible. We can keep them simply *as is*. Not sure though why bpf.h + ebpf.h would be that bad. ;) I haven't tried it out yet, but if we would indeed run into a name collision, above proposal would resolve that.
| |