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:   Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:46:48 -0700
From:   "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     mst@...hat.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 4/20/2018 8:28 AM, 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, 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 especially the
> three device model.  MS worked hard with distro vendors to support transparent
> mode, ans we really can't have a new model; or do backport.

failover_ops are specifically added to support both 2-netdev and 3-netdev models
This patch doesn't change netvsc model. It still keeps its 2-netdev model. From
netvsc, point of view it is just moving some code from netvsc to the failover module
and also i think the eventhandling and getbymac routines are more optimal.


> Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ