netdev - Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] QLogic VNIC: sysfs interface implementation for the driver

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]

Message-id: <1212688486.1173.5.camel@lap75545.ornl.gov>
Date:	Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:54:46 -0400
From:	David Dillow <dillowda@...l.gov>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc:	Amar Mudrankit <amar.mudrankit@...gic.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	poornima.kamath@...gic.com
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] QLogic VNIC: sysfs	interface
 implementation for the driver


On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 09:38 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > That said, given that SRP's been using sysfs since it went in, is there
>  > a reason to move to configfs other than it's the new preferred way to do
>  > it? Given the desire to not break ABI's -- and IIRC sysfs was declared to
>  > be under that unbrella -- wouldn't we have to at least carry both
>  > interfaces for a while, assuming we can even get rid of the sysfs one?
> 
> Yes, we'd definitely be carrying both interfaces for at least a year.
> 
> Looking further into this, I'm not sure it makes much sense either.
> Another problem with configfs is that the lifetime of the object is
> controlled by userspace.  So if we lose a connection to a target,
> the object will persist in configfs until userspace notices.

Yep. Though I'd like to be able to have a persistent connection and
retry capability in the kernel, so that I don't need to have srp_daemon,
and the persistence would be fine in that case. I've not fully convinced
myself that doing a persistent connection in the kernel is a good idea,
but a deep background task is trying to do the OFED patches to the
initiator in a way that is acceptable for inclusion in mainline, and
they would easily fall out of that work.
-- 
Dave Dillow
National Center for Computational Science
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(865) 241-6602 office


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html