[PATCH] [RFC PATCH] BPF backend

[Chandler Carruth]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de>
wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 03:07:41PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger
> > <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 03:08:17AM +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > >> recently linux gained "universal in-kernel virtual machine" which is
> called
> > >> eBPF or extended BPF. The name comes from "Berkeley Packet Filter",
> since
> > >> new instruction set is based on it.
> > >
> > > I'd prefer if the backend name matches that, e.g. eBPF and not BPF.
> >
> > What had similar discussion in kernel and common agreement was to use
> > just BPF everywhere. In all macros, filenames, system call, etc.
> > It will be extremely confusing to users when they can do 'man bpf'
> > and #include <bpf.h>, but to select correct llvm backend they
> > would have to specify -march=ebpf...
>
> It will be just as confusion for users on any non-Linux system to
> discover that the created BPF is not really BPF. I blame the Linux folks
> for overloading the name.


I think it is essentially nuts to for folks that aren't contributing to
Linux to try to argue with the Linux folks about the name they chose for
their feature. ;]

If this goes in, it should follow whatever naming convention the kernel
folks that designed it and work on and with it would expect and use.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20141204/79252f2e/attachment.html>