[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30bbcc92-f5ff-cbda-7a3b-cc801aa560ed@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:29:14 +0200
From: Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>,
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 13.09.23 11:53, Wen Gu wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
As /proc is an interface to userface, we would have to maintain the 2 redundant methods basically forever.
I personally don't think we should implement another interface without a very strong reason.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists