netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] sfc: Add EF100 BAR config support

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:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:57:34 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        davem <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        mst <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] sfc: Add EF100 BAR config support

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 12:05 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 12:32:12 +0100 Martin Habets wrote:
> > > Okay. Indeed, we could easily bolt something onto devlink, I'd think
> > > but I don't know the space enough to push for one solution over
> > > another.
> > >
> > > Please try to document the problem and the solution... somewhere, tho.
> > > Otherwise the chances that the next vendor with this problem follows
> > > the same approach fall from low to none.
> >
> > Yeah, good point. The obvious thing would be to create a
> >  Documentation/networking/device_drivers/ethernet/sfc/sfc/rst
> > Is that generic enough for other vendors to find out, or there a better place?
>
> Documentation/vdpa.rst ? I don't see any kernel level notes on
> implementing vDPA perhaps virt folks can suggest something.

Not sure, since it's not a vDPA general thing but a vendor/parent
specific thing.

Or maybe Documentation/vdpa/sfc ?

Thanks

> I don't think people would be looking into driver-specific docs
> when trying to implement an interface, so sfc is not a great option
> IMHO.
>
> > I can do a follow-up patch for this.
>
> Let's make it part of the same series.
>