Hi Jamal! On Tue, 21 May 2024 08:35:07 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > At that point(v16) i asked for the series to be applied despite the > Nacks because, frankly, the Nacks have no merit. Paolo was not > comfortable applying patches with Nacks and tried to mediate. In his > mediation effort he asked if we could remove eBPF - and our answer was > no because after all that time we have become dependent on it and > frankly there was no technical reason not to use eBPF. I'm not fully clear on who you're appealing to, and I may be missing some points. But maybe it will be more useful than hurtful if I clarify my point of view. AFAIU BPF folks disagree with the use of their subsystem, and they point out that P4 pipelines can be implemented using BPF in the first place. To which you reply that you like (a highly dated type of) a netlink interface, and (handwavey) ability to configure the data path SW or HW via the same interface. AFAICT there's some but not very strong support for P4TC, and it doesn't benefit or solve any problems of the broader networking stack (e.g. expressing or configuring parser graphs in general) So from my perspective, the submission is neither technically strong enough, nor broadly useful enough to consider making questionable precedents for, i.e. to override maintainers on how their subsystems are extended.
