DDaniel Borkmannbpf, docs: s/eBPF/BPF in standards documents
| 文件 | 最后提交记录 | 最后更新时间 |
|---|---|---|
bpf, docs: Add abi.rst document to standardization subdirectory As specified in the IETF BPF charter, the BPF working group has plans to add one or more informational documents that recommend conventions and guidelines for producing portable BPF program binaries. The instruction-set.rst document currently contains a "Registers and calling convention" subsection which dictates a calling convention that belongs in an ABI document, rather than an instruction set document. Let's move it to a new abi.rst document so we can clean it up. The abi.rst document will of course be significantly changed and expanded upon over time. For now, it's really just a placeholder which will contain ABI-specific language that doesn't belong in other documents. Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230828155948.123405-3-void@manifault.com | 2 年前 | |
bpf, docs: Add abi.rst document to standardization subdirectory As specified in the IETF BPF charter, the BPF working group has plans to add one or more informational documents that recommend conventions and guidelines for producing portable BPF program binaries. The instruction-set.rst document currently contains a "Registers and calling convention" subsection which dictates a calling convention that belongs in an ABI document, rather than an instruction set document. Let's move it to a new abi.rst document so we can clean it up. The abi.rst document will of course be significantly changed and expanded upon over time. For now, it's really just a placeholder which will contain ABI-specific language that doesn't belong in other documents. Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230828155948.123405-3-void@manifault.com | 2 年前 | |
bpf, docs: s/eBPF/BPF in standards documents There isn't really anything other than just "BPF" at this point, so referring to it as "eBPF" in our standards document just causes unnecessary confusion. Let's just be consistent and use "BPF". Suggested-by: Will Hawkins <hawkinsw@obs.cr> Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230828155948.123405-4-void@manifault.com | 2 年前 |