On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:29 PM Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > >> > >> The point is that there are use-cases in which the users need the code in > >> C. One of those is the work being done in the Linux Foundation Elisa group. > >> There will be more formalism, like timed automata... which will require > >> infra-structure that is easily accessible in C... including synchronization, > >> and reactors that are available only in C on "per use-cases" basis - for > >> example on embedded devices. > > > > Where can I find more information about the constraints of these use cases? > > Check the LF elisa workgroup. Thanks for the information. It looks interesting. > > > I am asking because there are multiple ways to load a BPF program to the > > system. If the constraint is that we cannot have bpftrace or bcc in the system, > > maybe it is ok to run a standalone binary (written in C, compiled on a different > > system). > > as I said... *I am aware of that*. I do like BPF! I was already convinced I will having > things in BPF :-) > > dot2bpf does stand alone application, C + libbpf (and I did it this way to > have the most of flexibility), it works (for the things that are possible in BPF). > It shares most of the work in C/kernel, I will add it in the second patch series. This is great! Looking forward to trying it out. :) Thanks, Song
