From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] bpf: Add compute_const_regs() and prune_dead_branches() passes
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 19:49:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <657cd945186971fef9b30b856c0ca68e05839de5.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQJhXVri5XC8YScjUs1ShPiSokSCWt5F6LDJ-YDnivzb6g@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2026-04-01 at 19:45 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
[...]
> > > Q: What is the policy regarding naming exported functions?
> > > So far I always used "bpf_..." prefix assuming that this
> > > is a requirement, was I wrong?
> >
> > It's nice to have but not mandatory.
> > imo the names are unique enough, so unlikely to clash.
>
> This one I still think is ok, but the other patch does:
>
> -__printf(2, 3) static void verbose(void *private_data, const char *fmt, ...)
> +__printf(2, 3) void verbose(void *private_data, const char *fmt, ...)
>
> and this is definitely too much.
Let's do a bulk rename to bpf_verbose() it is super useful when moving
some parts of the verifier outside of the verifier.c
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-02 2:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-01 2:16 [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] bpf: Prep patches for static stack liveness Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 2:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/6] bpf: Do register range validation early Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 3:38 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-01 15:33 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 15:56 ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-04-01 16:25 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 2:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/6] bpf: Sort subprogs in topological order after check_cfg() Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 17:06 ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-04-01 21:10 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-04-02 0:17 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 2:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/6] selftests/bpf: Add tests for subprog topological ordering Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 2:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] bpf: Add compute_const_regs() and prune_dead_branches() passes Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 3:49 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-04-01 15:46 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 21:07 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-04-01 22:32 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-02 2:45 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-02 2:49 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2026-04-02 3:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 2:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/6] bpf: Move verifier helpers to header Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 20:16 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-04-01 2:16 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/6] bpf: Add helper and kfunc stack access size resolution Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-01 19:08 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-04-01 10:02 ` [syzbot ci] Re: bpf: Prep patches for static stack liveness syzbot ci
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=657cd945186971fef9b30b856c0ca68e05839de5.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox