On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 5:52 AM Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 2020/11/5 上午11:46, Jason Wang wrote: > >> > >> It's probably ok if we treat the bytecode as a kind of firmware. > > That is explicitly *not* OK for inclusion in Fedora. They require that > > BPF is compiled from source, and rejected my suggestion that it could > > be considered a kind of firmware and thus have an exception from building > > from source. > > > Actually, there's another advantages. If we treat it as firmware, > (actually it is). It allows us to upgrade it independently with qemu. > > Hi Jason, I think this is a big disadvantage to have the BPF binary outside of QEMU. It is compiled with common structures (for example RSS configuration) defined in QEMU and if it is not built in the QEMU then nobody is responsible for the compatibility of the BPF and QEMU. Just an array of instructions (af today) is ~2k, full object file (if we use libbpf) is ~8K, so there is no big problem with the size. If we even keep the entire object in QEMU, it is for sure 100% compatible. Thanks > >
