On 08/29/2014 08:02 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Daniel Borkmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 08/27/2014 10:37 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

quoted

allow user space to generate eBPF programs

uapi/linux/bpf.h: eBPF instruction set definition

linux/filter.h: the rest

Very sorry for being late, but just a thought since we're touching user
space headers anyway ...

Wouldn't it be more consistent to have it organized as follows ...

  - uapi/linux/bpf.h    : classic BPF instruction set parts only
  - uapi/linux/ebpf.h   : eBPF instruction set definition (which also
                          includes uapi/linux/bpf.h though)
... and have ...

  - uapi/linux/filter.h : just include uapi/linux/bpf.h but rest is empty

That way, it would be more consistent ...

Old legacy application can stay with linux/filter.h; new applications
based on their needs can choose between linux/{e,}bpf.h and in the kernel,
we can just include linux/ebpf.h.

Right now, it seems, an eBPF user space program would need to include
2 header files in user space (linux/filter.h, linux/bpf.h) which I find
a bit confusing.

It's been bugging me as well, but I suspect having it the way you
described won't work. Mainly because we cannot do include <uapi/..>
inside uapi/*.h, so we would need to do include <linux/bpf.h>
inside uapi/linux/filter.h, but that will cause serious include path
confusion. That was the reason I didn't simply do include <linux/filter.h>
inside uapi/linux/bpf.h

Also I really dislike 'ebpf' name in all lower case. If we make such header
file name, we would need to rename all macros and function names
to EBPF_... which I find very ugly looking. I think all good abbreviations are
three letters :)

I don't think we would have to name defines that way, really, that would be
terrible. We can keep them simply *as is*. Not sure though why bpf.h + ebpf.h
would be that bad. ;) I haven't tried it out yet, but if we would indeed run
into a name collision, above proposal would resolve that.