Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 3/3] docs: Split filter.txt into separate documents.

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Fri,  3 Aug 2018 08:31:00 +1000
"Tobin C. Harding" <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In preparation for conversion of Documentation/networking/filter.txt it
> was noticed that the document contains a lot of information.  The
> document may be more accessible if it was split up.  Some parts pertain
> to everyone, let's put these bits in core-api/.  The more hard core bits
> about eBPF internals could be put with the other BPF docs in
> Documentation/bpf/.  There is a small bit of information on testing and
> miscellaneous matters that are useful for everyone (everyone does
> testing, right) so lets keep that info at the bottom of both new
> documents.  (This includes the original authors.)
> 
> Split Documentation/networking/filter.txt into
> Documentation/bpf/eBPF.rst and Documentation/core-api/bpf.rst
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../{networking/filter.txt => bpf/eBPF.rst}   | 590 +----------------
>  Documentation/core-api/bpf.rst                | 599 ++++++++++++++++++

Some overall thoughts...

 - A good step in the right direction, and worthwhile work.  Thanks for
   doing this!

 - The new eBPF.rst file is not actually an RST file.  Giving it that
   extension while not converting the contents will confuse Sphinx.  I'd
   call it .txt at this point.

 - The document now known as core-api/bpf.rst is still covering two
   separate things.  One is the socket-filter API, while the other is
   classic BPF.  Since cBPF is still used elsewhere (seccomp), it's of
   wider interest.  Also, this is user-space API stuff, not kernel API
   stuff, so I think that Documentation/userspace-api/ is the right place
   for it.

I'm kind of thinking this through as I type it, but I guess I'm arguing
for the creation of three files, all in Documentation/userspace-api/:

 - socket-filter.rst on how to write socket filters
 - cBPF.rst describing classic BPF and its tools
 - eBPF.rst describing extended BPF

Tying cBPF.rst into seccomp_filter.rst could also be helpful for our
readers.

Does this make sense?

Thanks,

jon