netdev - Re: [net-2.6 PATCH 1/2] net: dcbnl: remove redundant DCB_CAP_DCBX

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: <1295801600.25104.13.camel@lb-tlvb-shmulik.il.broadcom.com>
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:53:20 +0200
From:	"Shmulik Ravid" <shmulikr@...adcom.com>
To:	"John Fastabend" <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
cc:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-2.6 PATCH 1/2] net: dcbnl: remove redundant
 DCB_CAP_DCBX_STATIC bit


On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:52 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 1/21/2011 6:35 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Remove redundant DCB_CAP_DCBX_STATIC bit in DCB capabilities
> > 
> > Setting this bit indicates that no embedded DCBx engine is
> > present and the hardware can not be configured. This is the
> > same as having none of the DCB capability flags set or simply
> > not implementing the dcbnl ops at all.
> > 
> > This patch removes this bit. The bit has not made a stable
> > release yet so removing it should not be an issue with
> > existing apps.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
> > CC: Shmulik Ravid <shmulikr@...adcom.com>
> > ---
> > 
> 
> Shmulik, could you ACK this because you added these bits? But
> I was adding support for this in lldpad and I see no reason that
> we need these?
> 
DCB_CAP_DCBX_STATIC means that the embedded engine will turn the user
configuration into the operational configuration without performing the
actual negotiation, so it is not equivalent to not having an embedded
DCBx engine. This is mostly a debug and integration option as it allows
you to do DCB related or dependent testing and development without
having a proper DCBx peer.

On second thought, I'm not sure this option is justified although we
found it useful during our development. If you think it's not useful
enough (or not at all) then by all means remove it.

Thanks,
Shmulik



--
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