Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, docs: Remove deprecated xsk libbpf APIs description

[Song Liu]

> On Jul 7, 2022, at 9:27 PM, Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Since xsk APIs has been removed from libbpf, let's clean
> up the bpf docs simutaneously.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
> .../bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst         | 13 ++-----------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst
> index f86360f734a8..c5ac97f3d4c4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/libbpf/libbpf_naming_convention.rst
> @@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ described here. It's recommended to follow these conventions whenever a
> new function or type is added to keep libbpf API clean and consistent.
> 
> All types and functions provided by libbpf API should have one of the
> -following prefixes: ``bpf_``, ``btf_``, ``libbpf_``, ``xsk_``,
> -``btf_dump_``, ``ring_buffer_``, ``perf_buffer_``.
> +following prefixes: ``bpf_``, ``btf_``, ``libbpf_``, ``btf_dump_``,
> +``ring_buffer_``, ``perf_buffer_``.
> 
> System call wrappers
> --------------------
> @@ -59,15 +59,6 @@ Auxiliary functions and types that don't fit well in any of categories
> described above should have ``libbpf_`` prefix, e.g.
> ``libbpf_get_error`` or ``libbpf_prog_type_by_name``.
> 
> -AF_XDP functions
> --------------------
> -
> -AF_XDP functions should have an ``xsk_`` prefix, e.g.
> -``xsk_umem__get_data`` or ``xsk_umem__create``. The interface consists
> -of both low-level ring access functions and high-level configuration
> -functions. These can be mixed and matched. Note that these functions
> -are not reentrant for performance reasons.
> -
> ABI
> ---
> 
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>