@@ -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).
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(-)