netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 06/10] {NET,IB}/mlx4: Add device managed flow steering firmware API

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: <CAG4TOxNyxP8FpzNdMZR3WMvFCQtEx_r3oLh6s7sZOcBnqN=6tA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2012 01:14:48 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>
To:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, yevgenyp@...lanox.com,
	oren@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, hadarh@...lanox.co.il
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/10] {NET,IB}/mlx4: Add device managed flow
 steering firmware API

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2012 12:42 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> [...] Module parameters stink because every driver is going to provide the
>> knob differently, with a different name, and different semantics. This
>> creates a terrible user experience, and I will not allow it.
>
> OK, so if looking on what we are left with on the table, seems that sysfs
> entry on the mlx4_core
> level (as we do for the port link type {IB, Eth} or IB port MTU) could be
> fine here, Roland, agree?

What was wrong with Dave's initial suggestion of ethtool?  All the
other steering stuff is configured that way, why not this hash?

 - R.
--
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