linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: renesas: rswitch: use per-port irq handlers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ca2f1f63-0682-420f-b447-eebe7ba66c63@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 17:46:50 +0500
From: Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Michael Dege <michael.dege@...esas.com>,
 Christian Mardmoeller <christian.mardmoeller@...esas.com>,
 Dennis Ostermann <dennis.ostermann@...esas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: renesas: rswitch: use per-port irq
 handlers

>> There are only 3 physical ports, however the use case I'm targeting is -
>> virtual ports serving virtual machines (with offloading features making
>> hardware directly L2-forward or L3-route most traffic between outside world
>> and VM-owned virtual port frontends). In this setup, some of 8 GWCA irqs
>> will be given to VMs and thus there are definitely not enough to
>> per-consumer allocation.
> 
> And you are describing your VMs in DT as well? And if you change your
> VM setup, you are going to modify your DT? This all sounds wrong.

Since this is for embedded, particular setups will likely be static... so defining driver configuration 
in device tree suits the needs quite well.

Still, if this is considered as device tree misuse, I will implement some other solution.

Maybe, add a sysfs_group to port netdev and have irq_index attribute there?
Then, target rootfs will be able to configure that via udev rules file.

> I don't know if it will help, but ethtool mentions:
> 
>         -l --show-channels
> ... 
>         -L --set-channels

I believe this is for multi-queue devices configuration, which is a somewhat different thing.

Nikita