On 11/19/25 12:50 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 23:52:30 +0100 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:59:45PM +0000, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:

quoted

So "c-function-prefix" or something might work better.

Also fine with me. I'd just like consistent function naming, one way or
another.

IIUC we're talking about the prefix for the kernel C codegen?
Feels a bit like a one-off feature to me, but if we care deeply about
it let's add it as a CLI param to the codegen. I don't think it's
necessary to include this in the YAML spec.

IIUC then adding it as a CLI param is more work, and just moves family details
to ynl-regen, might as well skip the CLI param then and hack it in the codegen.

Before posting any new patches, I would like to get consensus on this.

Options:

A) As-is and all 4 functions gets renamed.

    Stacktraces, gdb scripts, tracing etc. changes due to the 4 function renames.

B) Add a "operations"->"function-prefix" in YAML, only one funtion gets renamed.

    wg_get_device_start(), wg_get_device_dump() and wg_get_device_done() keep
    their names, while wg_set_device() gets renamed to wg_set_device_doit().

    This compliments the existing "name-prefix" (which is used for the UAPI enum names).

    Documentation/netlink/genetlink-legacy.yaml |  6 ++++++
    tools/net/ynl/pyynl/ynl_gen_c.py            | 13 +++++++++----
    2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

C) Add a "call" in YAML to override the default doit/dumpit names.

    All 4 functions can keep their current names.

    This compliments the existing "pre" and "post" (which are only rendered when set).

    How these map to struct genl_split_ops:

       kind \ YAML | pre        | call    | post
      -------------+------------+---------+------------
       do          | .pre_doit  | .doit   | .post_doit
       dump        | .start     | .dumpit | .done

D) Add it as a ynl_gen_c.py CLI param and make ynl-regen set it for wireguard?

While A is a no-op, then B is simpler to implement than option C, as the names are
generated in multiple places, where as it's simple to just use a prefix.
So option C might require some more refactoring, than is worth it for an one-off feature.
OTOH option C is more flexible than option B.

Jason, would option B work for you?

Jakub, would option B or C be acceptable?

WDYT?