On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 10:45 AM Martin KaFai Lau [off-list ref] wrote:

_if_ it is using as a qdisc object/interface,
the patch "looks" easier because it obscures some of the ops/interface
from the bpf user.  The user will eventually ask for more flexibility
and then an on-par interface as the kernel's qdisc.  If there are some
common 'ops', the common bpf code can be shared as a library in userspace
or there is also kfunc call to call into the kernel implementation.
For existing kernel qdisc author,  it will be easier to use the same
interface also.

Thanks for showing the advantages of a kernel module. And no, we
are not writing kernel modules in eBPF.

And kfunc call really sucks, it does not even guarantee a stable ABI, it
is a serious mistake you made for eBPF.

Thanks.