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  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:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:10:10 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <>, Moshe Shemesh <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>, <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 01/13] devlink: Add reload action option
 to devlink reload command

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:10:36 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
> On 8/17/2020 7:36 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:37:40AM CEST, wrote:  
> >> Add devlink reload action to allow the user to request a specific reload
> >> action. The action parameter is optional, if not specified then devlink
> >> driver re-init action is used (backward compatible).
> >> Note that when required to do firmware activation some drivers may need
> >> to reload the driver. On the other hand some drivers may need to reset  
> > Sounds reasonable. I think it would be good to indicate that though. Not
> > sure how...  
> Maybe counters on the actions done ? Actually such counters can be 
> useful on debug, knowing what reloads we had since driver was up.

Wouldn't we need to know all types of reset of drivers may do?

I think documenting this clearly should be sufficient.

A reset counter for the _requested_ reset type (fully maintained by
core), however - that may be useful. The question "why did this NIC
reset itself / why did the link just flap" comes up repeatedly.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists