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: <20120702.013445.1273332212099485403.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ogerlitz@...lanox.com
Cc:	roland@...nel.org, 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

From: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:55:28 +0300

> 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?

No way.

You have to create a real interface, that other vendors with similar
chips can consistently use.
--
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