On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 6:55 PM Dave Thaler <dthaler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 9:52 PM > > To: Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@xxxxxx> > > Cc: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@xxxxxxxxx>; Dave Thaler > > <dthaler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; bpf@xxxxxxxx; bpf <bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [Bpf] Review of draft-thaler-bpf-isa-01 > > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 8:14 PM Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The Appendix (the opcode table) is not in the kernel repo now and > > > still has the issues that I outlined above. > > Suggestions (especially concrete changes) welcome :) > > > Will that make it in to > > > the kernel? > [...] > > I thought it's auto generated, so it should be easy to update. > > It's not yet auto generated, and some parts are hard to auto-generated > because the combinations are just in English text. > > > If not, let's certainly bring it in. > > At the IETF BPF WG meeting, folks seemed agnostic as to whether it > was brought into the Linux repo or not. See recording at > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTtPbJqfYwI at 1:15:30 - 1:17:30, > and Christoph was the only one who spoke up, preferring to just keep > a static copy of the Internet Draft in the kernel repository. I interpreted > this as saying no one cared about having the IANA considerations section > in a separate file there. But we confirm consensus on the list, so it's fine > to revisit now if there are good reasons to do so. I think IANA consideration section is orthogonal to giant opcode table. They're related, but don't have to be together in one .rst file. I think it's cleaner to have separate instruction-set-opcode.rst We also went back and forth during the meeting whether hierarchy of tables is prefered or one table. Currently you have one table and it actually looks very readable. My preference would be to keep it this way and carry over to IANA eventually as one table.
