David Vernet writes: [...] > I'd like to highlight this line in particular: > > > This means any version of this specification published at the above > > link can be regarded as stable in the technical sense of the word (but > > not necessarily in the official RISC-V International specification > > state meaning), with the official specification state being an > > indicator of the completeness, clarity and general editorial quality > > of the specification. > > To my reading, this sounds a lot more like a (strongly advised) informational > document, than a formal standard. > > > The eBPF Foundation could publish the equivalent of the > > riscv-calling.pdf document above, but we (the IETF and BPF > > communities) decided the IETF was the best place to publish such > > documents. As such, I envision an IETF RFC for the BPF calling convention > that is very similar to the RISC-V standard one above. > > > > Given the precedent, and the need in BPF, I don't see a problem. > > Just to make sure we're all on the same page here: Are you proposing that we > publish a formal standard for psABI specifications, or are you proposing we > publish an informationl document? In an email last week to the list I mentioned Informational as a possibility. I don't have a strong preference, but I have a weak preference for Proposed Standard status. As an implementer, I would want to make sure that ebpf-for-windows, PREVAIL, and uBPF all do the same thing, ideally matching Linux for everything the former projects support, to allow using consistent tooling. Dave
