From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7839DC4332F for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 06:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFB8610A0 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 06:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229619AbhKSGSf (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 01:18:35 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:49976 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229502AbhKSGSe (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2021 01:18:34 -0500 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id B926968AFE; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 07:15:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 07:15:28 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jonathan Corbet , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf, docs: prune all references to "internal BPF" Message-ID: <20211119061528.GA15129@lst.de> References: <20211115130715.121395-1-hch@lst.de> <20211115130715.121395-2-hch@lst.de> <1bb1c024-55a0-b9bf-8aa1-2bfd7a3c367d@iogearbox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1bb1c024-55a0-b9bf-8aa1-2bfd7a3c367d@iogearbox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:09:02AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > Thanks for the cleanup! For the code occurrences with 'internal BPF', I would > just drop the term 'internal' so it's only 'BPF' which is consistent with the > rest in the kernel. Usually eBPF is implied given all the old cBPF stuff is > translated to it anyway. Bit confusing, but that's where it converged over the > years in the kernel including git log. eBPF vs cBPF unless it's explicitly > intended to be called out (like in the filter.rst docs). Ok. > nit: We can probably just drop that comment since it's not very useful anyway > and already implied by the function name. Sounds good.