netdev - Re: [net-next,1/2] add iovnl netlink support

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: <C7F35C03.29CF4%scofeldm@cisco.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:26:27 -0700
From:	Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>
CC:	<davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next,1/2] add iovnl netlink support

On 4/20/10 9:19 AM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de> wrote:

>>> But that's only the case if the NIC itself is in VEPA mode. If that
>>> were the case, there would be no need for a kernel interface at all,
>>> because then we could just drive the port profile selection from user
>>> space.
>>> 
>>> The proposed interface only seems to make sense if you use it to
>>> configure the NIC itself! Why should it care about the port profile
>>> otherwise?
>> 
>> In the case of devices that can do adjacent switch negotiations directly.
> 
> I thought the idea to deal with those devices was to beat sense into
> the respective developers until they do the negotiation in software 8-)

When the device can do the negotiation directly with the switch, why does it
make sense to bypass that and use software on the host?  I don't think we'd
want to give up on link speed/duplex auto-negotiation and punt those setting
back to the user/host like in the old days.

-scott

--
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