netdev - Re: [net-next 05/13] igb: Add support for debugfs

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:57:40 +0200
From:	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
To:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...hat.com>
Cc:	Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
	Josh Hay <hayja@...l.uc.edu>, Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
	Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 05/13] igb: Add support for debugfs

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Jeff Kirsher
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
> This patch adds the necessary defines, variables, and stats updating
> procedures to use the commands implemented in debugfs.

Guys,

Do we have a clear criteria when it makes sense to have debugfs for
network driver and when it doesn't, for example
we got this cold shower
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=135959539719935&w=2 when attempting
to do so and I am
not fully clear (or want to sharpen the sow) how to review a concrete
design/need for debugs to fall into yes, it makes sense, or
no, it doesn't b/c there are existing mechanisms that can be used or
extended for that matter.

Or.
--
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