netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework

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, 20 Apr 2018 18:43:54 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, kubakici@...pl, jasowang@...hat.com,
        loseweigh@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling
 code to use the failover framework

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 08:28:02AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:42:04 -0700
> Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic
> > failover infrastructure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
> 
> Do what you want to other devices but leave netvsc alone.
> Adding these failover ops does not reduce the code size,

drivers/net/hyperv/Kconfig      |   1 +
drivers/net/hyperv/hyperv_net.h |   2 +
drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c | 208 ++++++++++------------------------------
3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-)

100 lines gone.


> and really is
> no benefit.  The netvsc device driver needs to be backported to several
> other distributions and doing this makes that harder.
> 
> I will NAK patches to change to common code for netvsc

Wow.

> especially the
> three device model.

AFAIK these patches do not change netvsc to a three device model.

> MS worked hard with distro vendors to support transparent
> mode, ans we really can't have a new model;

That's why Sridhar worked hard to preserve a 2 device model for netvsc.

> or do backport.
>
> Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model.

DPDK does the kernel bypass thing, doesn't it? Why does the kernel care?

-- 
MST