netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: phy: b53: switchdev driver for Broadcom BCM53xx switches

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:	Thu, 26 Feb 2015 07:47:55 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Rafa?? Mi??ecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jonas Gorski <jogo@...nwrt.org>,
	Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
	Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: b53: switchdev driver for Broadcom BCM53xx
 switches

Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:21:58AM CET, gospo@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:53:24PM -0800, Scott Feldman wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Andy Gospodarek
>> <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 03:03:56PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >>
>> >> What we don't want is X chip families and Y different ways to
>> >> configure the features. Ideal we want X chip families, and one way to
>> >> configure them all.
>> >
>> > This statement is really my primary concern.  There is lots of interest
>> > around hardware offload at this point and it seems like there is a risk
>> > that a lack of consistency can create problems.
>> >
>> > I think these patches are great as they allow for the programming of the
>> > offload hardware (and it has been pointed out that this drastically
>> > increases performance), but one concern I have with this patch (related
>> > to this) is that I'm not sure there is a major need to create netdevs
>> > automatically if there is not the ability to rx/tx actual frames on
>> > these interfaces.
>> 
>> Even when not used for rx/tx to CPU, it seems the netdevs are still
>> useful as an anchor to build higher-level constructs such as bridge or
>> bond, and to hang stuff like netdev stats or ethtool-ish things.
>> 
>
>I agree that they are useful, but now we are really dealing with a
>netdev that is slightly lower functionality than we expect from a netdev
>right now.

Is that a real care for some device now?
I agree with Scott that we need to model is consistently. If there is
such port netdev witch cannot tx/rx, we can expose the fact using some
flag...

>
--
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