linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/14] net: dsa: Add support for hardware monitoring

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]

Message-ID: <5449025B.4080600@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:27:55 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] net: dsa: Add support for hardware monitoring

On 10/23/2014 01:24 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:06:41PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 10/22/2014 09:37 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> You probably want the number of temperature sensors to come from the
>>> switch driver, and support arbitrary number of temperature sensors?
>>
>> In that case we would need the number of sensors, pass a sensor index,
>> and create a dynamic number of attributes. The code would get much more
>> complex without real benefit unless there is such a chip - and if there is,
>> we can still change the code at that time. I would prefer to keep it simple
>> for now.
>
> Better to do it correctly, right from the start. There *will* be such
> a chip one day, and the person wanting to add it will appreciate the
> solid foundation (even if that person ends up being you ;).
>

That is really a matter of opinion; others say one should only introduce
complex infrastructure into the kernel if and when needed. I don't mind
changing the code to anticipate multiple sensors, but as I said it would
be more complex, obviously I would only have limited means to test it,
and, yes, by nature I tend to be one of the people who prefer to keep
things simple. Before I jump into doing this, I would prefer to get
guidance from the maintainer. David ?

Thanks,
Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/