All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: bpf@ietf.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bpf] ISA: do individual instructions still need their own IANA status?
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:22:57 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240205152257.GG120243@maniforge> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00f801da565a$7e999250$7bccb6f0$@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1218 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 08:36:02PM -0800, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> Previously (draft -00) we said that each instruction would have a
> status of Permanent, Provisional, or Historical in the IANA registry.
>
> However, we now have conformance groups about to be merged into the
> ISA doc, and at IETF 118 we discussed having each conformance group
> have a status of Permanent, Provisional, or Historical.  That is, it
> makes sense for the status to be at the granularity of conformance
> group since one should implement all instructions in a conformance
> group together.
>
> As a result I now believe that each individual instruction no longer
> needs its own status since it can be derived from the status of the
> conformance group(s) it belongs to.  So in the IANA Considerations
> section, I plan to remove "status"
>
> from the list of fields in the instruction sub-registry and ONLY have
> "status" in the list of fields for the conformance group
> sub-registry).
> 
> Let me know if anyone has a good reason to keep it per-instruction.

No objection from me. AFAICT this matches what RISC-V does, which again
seems reasonable to emulate.

Thanks,
David

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Cc: bpf@ietf.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bpf] ISA: do individual instructions still need their own IANA status?
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:22:57 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240205152257.GG120243@maniforge> (raw)
Message-ID: <20240205152257.hZFmjgmrp-yAOZvklHYZkvmv2l46u06zhUWp91dNwpo@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00f801da565a$7e999250$7bccb6f0$@gmail.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1218 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 08:36:02PM -0800, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> Previously (draft -00) we said that each instruction would have a
> status of Permanent, Provisional, or Historical in the IANA registry.
>
> However, we now have conformance groups about to be merged into the
> ISA doc, and at IETF 118 we discussed having each conformance group
> have a status of Permanent, Provisional, or Historical.  That is, it
> makes sense for the status to be at the granularity of conformance
> group since one should implement all instructions in a conformance
> group together.
>
> As a result I now believe that each individual instruction no longer
> needs its own status since it can be derived from the status of the
> conformance group(s) it belongs to.  So in the IANA Considerations
> section, I plan to remove "status"
>
> from the list of fields in the instruction sub-registry and ONLY have
> "status" in the list of fields for the conformance group
> sub-registry).
> 
> Let me know if anyone has a good reason to keep it per-instruction.

No objection from me. AFAICT this matches what RISC-V does, which again
seems reasonable to emulate.

Thanks,
David

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 76 bytes --]

-- 
Bpf mailing list
Bpf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf

  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-05 15:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-03  4:36 [Bpf] ISA: do individual instructions still need their own IANA status? dthaler1968=40googlemail.com
2024-02-05 15:22 ` David Vernet [this message]
2024-02-05 15:22   ` David Vernet

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240205152257.GG120243@maniforge \
    --to=void@manifault.com \
    --cc=bpf@ietf.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.