Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[dthaler1968]

At IETF 119, we agreed that "by address" should be changed to something else
in the ISA.
The term "legacy ID" was used during the discussion but Christoph (if I
remember right)
pointed out that such IDs are not deprecated per se.  Hence "legacy" may not
be the
right word since we use that word with legacy packet access instructions
that are
deprecated. We decided to take further discussion to the list, hence this
email.

We need some term to distinguish them from BTF IDs, so another alternative
might be "non-BTF ID".

Thoughts, or other alternatives?

Dave

[Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[dthaler1968=40googlemail.com]

At IETF 119, we agreed that "by address" should be changed to something else
in the ISA.
The term "legacy ID" was used during the discussion but Christoph (if I
remember right)
pointed out that such IDs are not deprecated per se.  Hence "legacy" may not
be the
right word since we use that word with legacy packet access instructions
that are
deprecated. We decided to take further discussion to the list, hence this
email.

We need some term to distinguish them from BTF IDs, so another alternative
might be "non-BTF ID".

Thoughts, or other alternatives?

Dave

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

Re: [Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[David Vernet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 01:10:38PM -0700, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> At IETF 119, we agreed that "by address" should be changed to
> something else in the ISA.  The term "legacy ID" was used during the
> discussion but Christoph (if I remember right) pointed out that such
> IDs are not deprecated per se.  Hence "legacy" may not be the right
> word since we use that word with legacy packet access instructions
> that are deprecated. We decided to take further discussion to the
> list, hence this email.
> 
> We need some term to distinguish them from BTF IDs, so another
> alternative might be "non-BTF ID".

Non-BTF ID is fine with me. Any objections?

Thanks,
David

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

Re: [Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[David Vernet]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 01:10:38PM -0700, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> At IETF 119, we agreed that "by address" should be changed to
> something else in the ISA.  The term "legacy ID" was used during the
> discussion but Christoph (if I remember right) pointed out that such
> IDs are not deprecated per se.  Hence "legacy" may not be the right
> word since we use that word with legacy packet access instructions
> that are deprecated. We decided to take further discussion to the
> list, hence this email.
> 
> We need some term to distinguish them from BTF IDs, so another
> alternative might be "non-BTF ID".

Non-BTF ID is fine with me. Any objections?

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

Re: [Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[Watson Ladd]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:50 PM David Vernet <void@manifault.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 01:10:38PM -0700, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> > At IETF 119, we agreed that "by address" should be changed to
> > something else in the ISA.  The term "legacy ID" was used during the
> > discussion but Christoph (if I remember right) pointed out that such
> > IDs are not deprecated per se.  Hence "legacy" may not be the right
> > word since we use that word with legacy packet access instructions
> > that are deprecated. We decided to take further discussion to the
> > list, hence this email.
> >
> > We need some term to distinguish them from BTF IDs, so another
> > alternative might be "non-BTF ID".
>
> Non-BTF ID is fine with me. Any objections?

If something later comes along supplanting BTF it will be the not-BTF
not-non-BTF thing. This is bad. How about untyped identifiers?
>
> Thanks,
> David
> --
> Bpf mailing list
> Bpf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf



-- 
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim

Re: [Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[Watson Ladd]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:50 PM David Vernet <void@manifault.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 01:10:38PM -0700, dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> > At IETF 119, we agreed that "by address" should be changed to
> > something else in the ISA.  The term "legacy ID" was used during the
> > discussion but Christoph (if I remember right) pointed out that such
> > IDs are not deprecated per se.  Hence "legacy" may not be the right
> > word since we use that word with legacy packet access instructions
> > that are deprecated. We decided to take further discussion to the
> > list, hence this email.
> >
> > We need some term to distinguish them from BTF IDs, so another
> > alternative might be "non-BTF ID".
>
> Non-BTF ID is fine with me. Any objections?

If something later comes along supplanting BTF it will be the not-BTF
not-non-BTF thing. This is bad. How about untyped identifiers?
>
> Thanks,
> David
> --
> Bpf mailing list
> Bpf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf



-- 
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim

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

RE: [Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[dthaler1968]

Watson Ladd wrote: 
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:50 PM David Vernet <void@manifault.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 01:10:38PM -0700,
> dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> > > At IETF 119, we agreed that "by address" should be changed to
> > > something else in the ISA.  The term "legacy ID" was used during the
> > > discussion but Christoph (if I remember right) pointed out that such
> > > IDs are not deprecated per se.  Hence "legacy" may not be the right
> > > word since we use that word with legacy packet access instructions
> > > that are deprecated. We decided to take further discussion to the
> > > list, hence this email.
> > >
> > > We need some term to distinguish them from BTF IDs, so another
> > > alternative might be "non-BTF ID".
> >
> > Non-BTF ID is fine with me. Any objections?
> 
> If something later comes along supplanting BTF it will be the not-BTF not-non-
> BTF thing. This is bad. How about untyped identifiers?

For runtimes that have a way to look up type info from a non-BTF ID, the 
ID is not "untyped" per se.

Other possibilities:
* Classic ID, but "classic" would imply classic BPF
* Index, but that would imply the runtime actually has to implement it as an index 

As such, I think "non-BTF ID" is better than the other possibilities above, and a
future ISA version could always rename it if other things come up in the future
that necessitate a terminology change.

Dave

Re: [Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[dthaler1968=40googlemail.com]

Watson Ladd wrote: 
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:50 PM David Vernet <void@manifault.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 01:10:38PM -0700,
> dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> > > At IETF 119, we agreed that "by address" should be changed to
> > > something else in the ISA.  The term "legacy ID" was used during the
> > > discussion but Christoph (if I remember right) pointed out that such
> > > IDs are not deprecated per se.  Hence "legacy" may not be the right
> > > word since we use that word with legacy packet access instructions
> > > that are deprecated. We decided to take further discussion to the
> > > list, hence this email.
> > >
> > > We need some term to distinguish them from BTF IDs, so another
> > > alternative might be "non-BTF ID".
> >
> > Non-BTF ID is fine with me. Any objections?
> 
> If something later comes along supplanting BTF it will be the not-BTF not-non-
> BTF thing. This is bad. How about untyped identifiers?

For runtimes that have a way to look up type info from a non-BTF ID, the 
ID is not "untyped" per se.

Other possibilities:
* Classic ID, but "classic" would imply classic BPF
* Index, but that would imply the runtime actually has to implement it as an index 

As such, I think "non-BTF ID" is better than the other possibilities above, and a
future ISA version could always rename it if other things come up in the future
that necessitate a terminology change.

Dave

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

Re: [Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[Christoph Hellwig]

Maybe "static ID", or "pre-assigned" id?

RE: [Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[dthaler1968]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> Maybe "static ID", or "pre-assigned" id?

I'd be ok with either of those. If I don't hear
otherwise, I'll create a patch using "static ID".

Dave

Re: [Bpf] Follow up on "call helper function by address" terminology

[dthaler1968=40googlemail.com]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> Maybe "static ID", or "pre-assigned" id?

I'd be ok with either of those. If I don't hear
otherwise, I'll create a patch using "static ID".

Dave

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