On 12/10/16 2:21 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> >> Please name it bpf_prog_create() then, it would be consistent to >> bpf_map_create() and shorter as well. > > Sorry, lack of coffee, scratch that. > > Can't the current bpf_prog_attach() stay as is, and you name the above new > functions bpf_prog_attach_fd() and bpf_prog_detach_fd()? I think that would > be better.
ok. no concerns about consistency with libbpf in the kernel repo? Seems like making iproute2 and the kernel version the same will allow samples and code to move between them much easier.
