On 08/30/2014 01:01 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
...
> imo it's a consistency issue. If main uapi header is ebpf.h then
> corresponding kernel internal header should be ebpf.h as well
> and kernel/ebpf/ directory and so on.

I don't think that has to be enforced, but fair enough, if you
feel that way.

> That's why I insist on uapi/linux/bpf.h and no other name.
...
> them into bpf_common.h. My request is let's not fight about it
> right now. We didn't even cross the bridge yet and arguing
> about beauty of user apps that come in 30 patches from now...
...
> So these two patches are mainly establishing _intent_ and bpf.h file
> name. That's why I'm so paranoid about naming.

I understand, and that's why I said it could also be resolved later
in my previous email (at latest before it gets shipped though), but
just to give this some thought ...

I have attached one example, it doesn't have to be that way, but it's
one possibility if you want to stay with linux/bpf.h only.