linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] ethtool: doc: clarify what drivers can implement in their get

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, 16 Nov 2022 09:30:19 +0900
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
        Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] ethtool: doc: clarify what drivers can
 implement in their get_drvinfo()

On Tue. 16 Nov. 2022 at 01:28, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 16:52:39 +0900 Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > - * @fw_version: Firmware version string; may be an empty string
> > - * @erom_version: Expansion ROM version string; may be an empty string
> > + * @fw_version: Firmware version string; drivers can set it; may be an
> > + *     empty string
> > + * @erom_version: Expansion ROM version string; drivers can set it;
> > + *     may be an empty string
>
> "drivers can set it" rings a little odd to my non-native-English-
> -speaker's ear. Perhaps "driver-defined;" ? Either way is fine, tho.

I am not a native speaker either so I won't argue here. Changed to
"driver defined" in v4.

> >   * @bus_info: Device bus address.  This should match the dev_name()
> >   *     string for the underlying bus device, if there is one.  May be
> >   *     an empty string.
> > @@ -180,9 +182,10 @@ static inline __u32 ethtool_cmd_speed(const
> > struct ethtool_cmd *ep)
> >   * Users can use the %ETHTOOL_GSSET_INFO command to get the number of
> >   * strings in any string set (from Linux 2.6.34).
> >   *
> > - * Drivers should set at most @driver, @version, @fw_version and
> > - * @bus_info in their get_drvinfo() implementation.  The ethtool
> > - * core fills in the other fields using other driver operations.
> > + * Majority of the drivers should no longer implement the
> > + * get_drvinfo() callback.  Most fields are correctly filled in by the
> > + * core using system information, or populated using other driver
> > + * operations.
>
> SG! Good point on the doc being for the struct. We can make the notice
> even stronger if you want by saying s/Majority of the/Modern/

"Modern drivers should no longer..." sounds like an unconditional
interdiction. I changed it to "Modern drivers no longer have to..." to
nuance the terms and suggest that they remain some edge cases.

I sent the v4 but messed up the In-Reply-To tag so it became a new thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20221115233524.805956-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr/T/#u


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol