On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 11:33 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > I think it is an important detail though. You wouldnt say PSP shouldnt start small by first taking care of TLS or IPSec because it is not the target. > > 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. > Yes, the binary blob is going via devlink or some other scheme. > > 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++". We'll have to agree to disagree. Take a look at this for example. https://www.servethehome.com/pensando-distributed-services-architecture-smartnic/ cheers, jamal
