[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8285c4a4-791f-c081-7bbc-f6b884ce039a@stressinduktion.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:32:30 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, prem@...efootnetworks.com,
jbenc@...hat.com, tom@...bertland.com, mattyk@...lanox.com,
idosch@...lanox.com, eladr@...lanox.com, yotamg@...lanox.com,
nogahf@...lanox.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, linville@...driver.com,
andy@...yhouse.net, f.fainelli@...il.com, dsa@...ulusnetworks.com,
vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, andrew@...n.ch,
ivecera@...hat.com,
Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Let's do P4
On 31.10.2016 18:12, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >
>> >In the naive implementation only pipelines that map 1:1 will work. Maybe
>> >this is what Alexei is noticing?
> P4 is ment to program programable hw, not fixed pipeline.
Is it realistic to assume that future hardware might be programmed with
a proprietary (FPGA-alike) bitstream where a generic API wouldn't fit
anymore? I could imagine vendors shipping a higher abstracted
VHDL/Verilog compiler in the future and expect the kernel just forward
it to the hardware as-is.
Bye,
Hannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists