linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 3/9] ethtool: Add an interface for flashing transceiver modules' firmware

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: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:34:18 +0000
From: Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "davem@...emloft.net"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
	"linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "sdf@...gle.com"
	<sdf@...gle.com>, "kory.maincent@...tlin.com" <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
	"maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com" <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
	"vladimir.oltean@....com" <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
	"przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	"ahmed.zaki@...el.com" <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>, "richardcochran@...il.com"
	<richardcochran@...il.com>, "shayagr@...zon.com" <shayagr@...zon.com>,
	"paul.greenwalt@...el.com" <paul.greenwalt@...el.com>, "jiri@...nulli.us"
	<jiri@...nulli.us>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mlxsw
	<mlxsw@...dia.com>, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel
	<idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 3/9] ethtool: Add an interface for flashing
 transceiver modules' firmware

> > +The firmware update process can take several minutes to complete.
> > +Therefore, during the update process notifications are emitted from
> > +the kernel to user space updating it about the status and progress.
> 
> We should state more explicitly that the op just starts the process, and does
> not block. Looks like cable test already uses _ACT as a suffix, is it based on
> some standard? Doesn't seem all that intuitive to me (or at least less intuitive
> than calling it _START...)

From Documentation/networking/ethtool-netlink.rst:
"
List of message types
=====================

All constants identifying message types use ``ETHTOOL_CMD_`` prefix and suffix
according to message purpose:

==============    ======================================
``_GET``          userspace request to retrieve data
``_SET``          userspace request to set data
``_ACT``          userspace request to perform an action
``_GET_REPLY``    kernel reply to a ``GET`` request
``_SET_REPLY``    kernel reply to a ``SET`` request
``_ACT_REPLY``    kernel reply to an ``ACT`` request
``_NTF``          kernel notification
==============    ======================================
"

So, it looks suitable to me.