On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 1:53 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:53:28 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > 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. > > I really don't see any parallel with PSP. And it _is_ small, 4kLoC. > > First you complain that community is "political" and doesn't give you > technical feedback, and then when you get technical feedback you attack > the work of the maintainer helping you. > You made a proposal saying it was a "start small" approach. I responded saying that it doesnt really cover our requirements and pointed to a sample h/w to show why. I only used PSP to illustrate why "start small" doesnt work for what we are targeting. I was not in any way attacking your work. We are not trying to cover the whole world of offloads. It is a very specific niche -P4- which uses the existing tc model because that's how match-action tables are offloaded today. The actions and tables are dynamically defined by the users P4 program whereas in flower they are hardcoded in the kernel. I dont see any other way to achieve these goals with flower or other existing approaches. Flower for example could be written as a single P4 program and the goal here is to support a wider range of programs without making kernel changes. cheers, jamal
