On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 10:45 AM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> wrote: > _if_ it is using as a qdisc object/interface, > the patch "looks" easier because it obscures some of the ops/interface > from the bpf user. The user will eventually ask for more flexibility > and then an on-par interface as the kernel's qdisc. If there are some > common 'ops', the common bpf code can be shared as a library in userspace > or there is also kfunc call to call into the kernel implementation. > For existing kernel qdisc author, it will be easier to use the same > interface also. Thanks for showing the advantages of a kernel module. And no, we are not writing kernel modules in eBPF. And kfunc call really sucks, it does not even guarantee a stable ABI, it is a serious mistake you made for eBPF. Thanks.
