[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0a4567e-07f1-91db-50cb-bbfc803f5969@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 17:53:57 +0800
From: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
jaka@...ux.ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Cc: alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com, tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net/smc: Introduce SMC-related proc files
On 2023/9/11 19:54, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Wen,
>
> I can understand your problem and frustration. However, there are two reasons I'm not really convinced by the proc file
> method:
> 1) AFAI, the proc method could consume many CPU time especially in case with a log of sockets to read the pseudo files.
> 2) We have already implemented the complex netlink method on the same purpose. I see the double expense to main the code.
>
> Then the question is if the lack of dependency issue can be handle somehow, or the proc method is the only way to
> achieve this purpose?
>
> Any opinion is welcome!
>
> Thanks,
> Wenjia
Hi, Wenjia. I agree with your concerns.
My initial intention is to make these proc files serve as a supplement to netlink to conveniently
check smc connections in an environment where smc-tools cannot be easily obtained.
Yes, proc files won't be the first choice for diagnosis, but can be a convenient backup.
Thanks,
Wen Gu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists