netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next] igb: add function to set I210 transmit mode

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:	Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:03:21 -0700
From:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	Gangfeng <gangfeng.huang@...com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next] igb: add function to set I210
 transmit mode

On 16-08-13 09:11 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 08:27:38AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> I really don' think this patch is going to work.  If you are going to
>> implement something like this and have a hope to get it accepted into
>> the Linux kernel you need to come up with a solution that will work
>> fore more than this one device.  We don't want the drivers having to
>> carry around their own sysfs controls for things that really are not
>> proprietary to the device.  There needs to be a generic kernel
>> interface for this.  The fact is something like QAV more than likely
>> exists on other devices as well so it may be worth while to look into
>> seeing if you could come up with some way of interfacing this with
>> either ethtool ,iproute2, or maybe even the DCB/LLDP utilities since
>> this is essentially splitting the Tx into two separate traffic
>> classes.
> 
> Yes to all of this.
>  
>> Also for these kind of patches it would be best to include the netdev
>> mailing list.  That way it can be reviewed by a wider audience and you
>> are much more likely to get this accepted upstream rather than have it
>> rejected when Jeff Kirsher attempts to submit it.
> 
> Right.  We just had a discussion about implementing TSN, and we will
> need proper infrastructure in place *before* we start hacking
> drivers.
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard

Ah reading my email backwards. I think we could add TSN under the mqprio
qdisc and ./net/dcb infrastructure. In hindsight I wouldn't have named
the infrastructure dcb as its already being used for other 802.1Q things
and hardware scheduling algorithms that are not strictly DCB.

.John