Watson Ladd wrote: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:50 PM David Vernet <void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 01:10:38PM -0700, > dthaler1968=40googlemail.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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
