oxidecomputer / oxidecomputer/p4
Support for v1model architecture (or PSA)
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 137
- Forks
- 12
- Avg merge
- 4d 22h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
I am considering adding support for the V1model architecture (whose BMv2 implementation documented here) to x4c. (And/or maybe PSA, if that makes a difference.)
Would upstream be open to accept support for v1model/PSA, or would I need to maintain a separate fork of x4c?
A bit more context: At Google, we currently use BMv2 + v1model as a reference model that we test our hardware switches against (see eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVohRRgRuvo for more details). I am exploring using x4c as a soft switch/reference model as an alternative to BMv2. I suspect that x4c may be easier to extend and maintain and may offer better performance.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue provides links to p4include/v1model.p4 and the BMv2 simple_switch documentation, but names no x4c files, tests, or entry point. First clarify whether v1model, PSA, or both are in scope and whether upstream support is desired; done would require an agreed implementation scope and acceptance criteria.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100