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.