> I'm not seeing how this helps solve the API stability problem faced by ordinary kernel modules.
I'm not entirely certain, but my impression is that EBPF has more limited capabilities, and so the API can be kept stable more easily. Of course that also means that you cannot do everything in EBPF that you can do in ordinary C modules.
Hence my questions elsewhere in the discussions if you could write device drivers in EBPF. If yes, that might enable much easier when the toolchain eventually matures. If not, much is explained.
I'm not entirely certain, but my impression is that EBPF has more limited capabilities, and so the API can be kept stable more easily. Of course that also means that you cannot do everything in EBPF that you can do in ordinary C modules.
Hence my questions elsewhere in the discussions if you could write device drivers in EBPF. If yes, that might enable much easier when the toolchain eventually matures. If not, much is explained.