Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 02:49:19PM CEST, andrew@xxxxxxx wrote: >> >This API gives user space SDKs a trivial way of implementing all >> >switching, routing, filtering, QoS offloads etc. >> >An argument can be made that given somewhat mixed switchdev experience >> >> Can you elaborabe a bit more what you mean by "mixed switchdev >> experience" please? > >I don't want to put words in Jakubs mouth but, in my opinion, >switchdev has been great for SoHo switches. We have over 100 >supported, mostly implemented by the community, but some vendors also >supporting their own hardware. > >We have two enterprise switch families supported, each by its own >vendor. And we have one TOR switch family supported by the vendor. > >So i would say switchdev has worked out great for SoHo, but kernel >bypass is still the norm for most things bigger than SoHo. > >Why? My guess is, the products with a SoHo switch is not actually a >switch. It is a wifi box, with a switch. It is a cable modem, with a >switch. It is an inflight entertainment system, with a switch, etc. >It is much easier to build such multi-purpose systems when everything >is nicely integrated into the kernel, you don't have to fight with >multiple vendors supplying SDKs which only work on a disjoint set of >kernels, etc. > >For bigger, single purpose devices, it is just a switch, there is less >inconvenience of using just one vendor SDK, on top of the vendor >proscribed kernel. I'm aware of what you wrote and undertand it. I just thought Jakub's mixed experience is about the APIs more than the politics behind vedors adoptation process.. > > Andrew >
