Re: [PATCH bpf-next] Documentation: bpf: escape underscore in BPF type name prefix

Bagas Sanjaya
2022-11-05T02:49:15Z

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