netdev - Re: [RFC] per-nic module parameters

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:39:20 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Brice Goglin <brice@...i.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] per-nic module parameters

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:09:35 +0200
Brice Goglin <brice@...i.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> We're working on making myri10ge module parameters per-nic. It looks
> like ixgb already does so with the following macro in ixgb_param.c:
> 
> #define IXGB_PARAM_INIT { [0 ... IXGB_MAX_NIC] = OPTION_UNSET }
> #define IXGB_PARAM(X, desc)                                     \
>         static int __devinitdata X[IXGB_MAX_NIC+1]              \
>                 = IXGB_PARAM_INIT;                              \
>         static unsigned int num_##X = 0;                        \
>         module_param_array_named(X, X, int, &num_##X, 0);       \
>         MODULE_PARM_DESC(X, desc);
> 
> Is this the recommended way to implement per-nic module params? Or
> should we do something else?

Module parameters are bad. They are device specific and awkward for
any general configuration system to deal with. As much as possible,
please convert any module parameters to real interfaces like netlink,
ethtool, or sysfs.
--
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