netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] cxgb4: Add support for loopback between VI of same port

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 May 2015 16:46:57 -0700
From:	Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	hariprasad@...lsio.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	nirranjan@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] cxgb4: Add support for loopback between VI of same port

  Okay, really: I’m not arguing for module parameters.  I’m agreeing with you 100%.
I’m not trying to be snarky or back you into admitting that there are some times
when a module parameter is needed.  I’m not being sneaky, etc.  I’m really just
asking a mechanism question.  It is, on the other hand, quite likely that I’m
being dumb.  I’ll absolutely grant you that.

  So let me turn this around and ask:

    What command would you envision that I use in order to tell a driver
    to use a different TX routine for an interface?

        ethtool —tx-routine eth{n} loopback

    Or?

 Sorry for being so dense.  We really are trying to live within the rules but
we’re struggling to figure out what patch we should submit.

Casey

> On May 22, 2015, at 11:01 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 
> From: Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 16:49:03 +0000
> 
>>  Oh I definitely understand that and agree.  Unfortunately I've
>> inherited a driver architecture that makes that ... "difficult"
>> for many operations ...  And I have an internal bug filed
>> against me to fix those particular issues.
>> 
>>  However, that doesn't answer at least one of my questions
>> which was how do I pass information into the driver _before_
>> it does the device probe?
> 
> I did answer the question, I said that if you fix the real actual
> core problem then you won't have this need to begin with.
> 
> I thought I made that perfectly clear.
> 
> I really am not going to entertain arguments of the form "it's
> too hard to implement this correctly so I'm going to try
> and slam a module parameter into the driver to fix things".
> 

--
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