The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
#2[deleted]
Re: The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
#3Re: The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
#4So… eBPF is now BPF and old BPF is now cBPF or classic bpf.
Re: The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
#5Somewhat related:
> P4 is a programming language for controlling packet forwarding planes in networking devices, such as routers and switches. In contrast to a general purpose language such as C or Python, P4 is a domain-specific language with a number of constructs optimized for network data forwarding. P4 is distributed as open-source, permissively licensed code, and is maintained by the P4 Project (formerly the P4 Language Consortium), a not-for-profit organization hosted by the Open Networking Foundation.
Re: The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
#6So… eBPF is now BPF and old BPF is now cBPF or classic bpf.
And there's wasm-bpf: https://github.com/eunomia-bpf/wasm-bpf#how-it-works
But should (browser) WASM processes cross the kernel boundary for BPF performance?
FWIW EVM/eWASM opcodes have a cost in gas/particles.
Re: The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
#7So… eBPF is now BPF and old BPF is now cBPF or classic bpf.
[deleted]
Re: The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
#8Nice... timing to get that number.
Re: The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
#9Nice... timing to get that number.
Kind of close to ISO 9660 so doubly easy to remember.
Re: The BPF instruction set architecture is now RFC 9669
#10So… eBPF is now BPF and old BPF is now cBPF or classic bpf.
And there's wasm-bpf: https://github.com/eunomia-bpf/wasm-bpf#how-it-works But should (browser) WASM processes cross the kernel boundary for BPF performance? FWIW EVM/eWASM opcodes have a cost in gas/particles.
Do you think that BPF opcodes should be costed, too? Why or why not?