On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:10:35 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > Before the tin foil hats gather - we have no use for any of this at > > Meta, I'm not trying to twist the design to fit the use cases of big > > bad hyperscalers. > > The scope is much bigger than just parsers though, it is about P4 in > which the parser is but one object. For me it's very much not "about P4". I don't care what DSL user prefers and whether the device the offloads targets is built by a P4 vendor. > Limiting what we can do just to fit a narrow definition of "offload" > is not the right direction. This is how Linux development works. You implement small, useful slice which helps the overall project. Then you implement the next, and another. On the technical level, putting the code into devlink rather than TC does not impose any meaningful limitations. But I really don't want you to lift and shift the entire pile of code at once. > P4 is well understood, hardware exists for P4 and is used to specify > hardware specs and is deployed(See Vipin's comment). "Hardware exists for P4" is about as meaningful as "hardware exists for C++".
