> On May 7, 2025, at 1:21 PM, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > !-------------------------------------------------------------------| > CAUTION: External Email > > |-------------------------------------------------------------------! > > Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >> >> >> On 07/05/2025 19.02, Zvi Effron wrote: >>> On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 9:37 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/05/2025 15.29, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >>>>> Stanislav Fomichev wrote: >>>>>> On 05/06, Jon Kohler wrote: >>>>>>> Introduce new XDP helpers: >>>>>>> - xdp_headlen: Similar to skb_headlen >>>> >>>> I really dislike xdp_headlen(). This "headlen" originates from an SKB >>>> implementation detail, that I don't think we should carry over into XDP >>>> land. >>>> We need to come up with something that isn't easily mis-read as the >>>> header-length. >>> >>> ... snip ... >>> >>>>>> + * xdp_headlen - Calculate the length of the data in an XDP buffer >>> >>> How about xdp_datalen()? >> >> Yes, I like xdp_datalen() :-) > > This is confusing in that it is the inverse of skb->data_len: > which is exactly the part of the data not in the skb head. > > There is value in consistent naming. I've never confused headlen > with header len. > > But if diverging, at least let's choose something not > associated with skbs with a different meaning. Brainstorming a few options: - xdp_head_datalen() ? - xdp_base_datalen() ? - xdp_base_headlen() ? - xdp_buff_datalen() ? - xdp_buff_headlen() ? - xdp_datalen() ? (ZivE, JesperB) - xdp_headlen() ? (WillemB, JonK, StanislavF, JacobK, DanielB)
