diff mbox series

[bpf-next,v7,01/26] bpf: Remove local kptr references in documentation

Message ID 20221114191547.1694267-2-memxor@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Commit 1f6d52f1a8947436dc5b2575e2fffb831f240141
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series Allocated objects, BPF linked lists | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR fail PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ${{ matrix.test }} on ${{ matrix.arch }} with ${{ matrix.toolchain }}
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 fail Logs for build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 fail Logs for build for aarch64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 fail Logs for build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 fail Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 fail Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for llvm-toolchain
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for set-matrix
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next, async
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count fail Series longer than 15 patches (and no cover letter)
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 10 maintainers not CCed: sdf@google.com kpsingh@kernel.org haoluo@google.com corbet@lwn.net yhs@fb.com jolsa@kernel.org martin.lau@linux.dev linux-doc@vger.kernel.org song@kernel.org john.fastabend@gmail.com
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 19 lines checked
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0

Commit Message

Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Nov. 14, 2022, 7:15 p.m. UTC 
We don't want to commit to a specific name for these. Simply call them
allocated objects coming from bpf_obj_new, which is completely clear in
itself.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst | 11 ++++++-----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
index 17e774d96c5e..cec2371173d7 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_design_QA.rst
@@ -332,13 +332,14 @@  avoid defining types with 'bpf\_' prefix to not be broken in future releases.
 In other words, no backwards compatibility is guaranteed if one using a type
 in BTF with 'bpf\_' prefix.
 
-Q: What is the compatibility story for special BPF types in local kptrs?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Q: Same as above, but for local kptrs (i.e. pointers to objects allocated using
-bpf_obj_new for user defined structures). Will the kernel preserve backwards
+Q: What is the compatibility story for special BPF types in allocated objects?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Q: Same as above, but for allocated objects (i.e. objects allocated using
+bpf_obj_new for user defined types). Will the kernel preserve backwards
 compatibility for these features?
 
 A: NO.
 
 Unlike map value types, there are no stability guarantees for this case. The
-whole local kptr API itself is unstable (since it is exposed through kfuncs).
+whole API to work with allocated objects and any support for special fields
+inside them is unstable (since it is exposed through kfuncs).