On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 2:04 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 08:14:12PM +0000, Dave Thaler wrote: > > Now that we have some new "v4" instructions, it seems a good time to ask about > > what it means to support (or comply with) the ISA RFC once published. Does > > it mean that a verifier/disassembler/JIT compiler/etc. MUST support *all* the > > non-deprecated instructions in the document? That is any runtime or tool that > > doesn't support the new instructions is considered non-compliant with the BPF ISA? > > Unless we clearly designate optional extensions that that can clearly > be marked supported or not supported that is the only way to get > interoperability. > Can we look to either RISC-V or ARM for prior art in how they worked different versions and compliance levels? I am happy to amass some documentation about their processes/procedures if you think that it would help! Will > -- > Bpf mailing list > Bpf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bpf
