[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151209173842.GA18097@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 09:38:44 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Anjali Singhai Jain <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:58:57PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
>
> So if the goal is to make the intent available to the hardware in
> a format which both the kernel and the hardware can draw the same
> conclusions from, wouldn't something like P4 + BPF derived from P4
> be a possibly better fit? There is discussion on stateful P4
> processing now.
p4 is a high level language and absolutely not suitable for such purpose.
bpf as intermediate representation can be generated from p4 or C or other
language. There is room to innovate in the language definition on top
and in HW design at the bottom. That's the most flexible model.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists