From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E7123B2A4 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 09:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 32CC0B0; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:56:39 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1532613399; bh=xkujjynIJsfjIYMDd1sKn04wVSU45GqQC4Z4AR7jXcA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Oxpk68dlTXkjN7VvZjS5wsQMIxBKQ/f/6WpxRboV+A9UPtDGgVKhnIQY4oUU5Z8Rk wZFE0XEKZ5xiEtQ56GZV3Kp5K0/QjjeK7RJgBIYMhdCmMMHsbzezF+ST7vkWK3nb93 vorCuBAL0zX5Hhj/lZcbFbECLT7llZykXeBVcTkk= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3113F9F; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:56:39 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:56:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: "dpreed@deepplum.com" cc: Dave Taht , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <1532610827.31646803@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: References: <1532610827.31646803@apps.rackspace.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] So how far behind is the embedded router world, still? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:56:40 -0000 On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, dpreed@deepplum.com wrote: > Why not now? Problem I am seeing is that there aren't enough abstraction frameworks, and creating these might take years. I saw Linus argued against ARM developers who kept coming with their SoC-unique patch-sets, and told them to go home and come back with something more generic. This actually happened. We have *not* seen this for packet accelerators for instance. I have advocated Linux Foundation to do this, they know the issue, it's something we all want to fix, but it needs customers to push OEMs to push SoC vendors to do this. It's a classical "everybody benefits in the long run, but short term there is no immediate benefit" kind of thing. Your example of PCI is classic, I see lots of Open* innitiatives but they're typically quasi-open, the source is open, but the work is done behind closed doors and code is thrown over the fence. To me it's amazing that Linux kernel has gotten as far as it has, and actually has a so-so working community around it, with lots of companies funding work going in there. Things could be a lot worse. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se