On 6/6/24 9:05 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 11:48:18 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> An argument can be made that given somewhat mixed switchdev experience >>> we should just stay out of the way and let that happen. But just make >>> that argument then, instead of pretending the use of this API will be >>> limited to custom very vendor specific things. >> >> Huh? > > I'm sorry, David as been working in netdev for a long time. And I will continue working on Linux networking stack (netdev) while I also work with the IB S/W stack, fwctl, and any other part of Linux relevant to my job. I am not going to pick a silo (and should not be required to). > I have a tendency to address the person I'm replying to, > assuming their level of understanding of the problem space. > Which makes it harder to understand for bystanders. > >> At least mlx5 already has a very robust userspace competition to >> switchdev using RDMA APIs, available in DPDK. This is long since been >> done and is widely deployed. > > Yeah, we had this discussion multiple times The switchdev / sonic comparison came to mind as well during this thread. The existence of a kernel way (switchdev) has not stopped sonic (userspace SDK) from gaining traction. In some cases the SDK is required for device features that do not have a kernel uapi or vendors refuse to offer a kernel way, so it is the only option. The bottom line to me is that these hardline, dogmatic approaches - resisting the recognition of reality - is only harming users. There is a middle ground, open source drivers and tools that offer more flexibility.
