Re: [PATCH 0/8] Introduce fwctl subystem

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 02:49:19PM CEST, andrew@lunn.ch 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
>