netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Control VF link state

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <519BEA6B.4080600@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 May 2013 14:43:07 -0700
From:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To:	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
CC:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	amirv@...lanox.com, ronye@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Control VF link state

[...]

>> The risk I see with extensible operations (and which has occurred with
>> many ethtool operations) is that drivers may quietly ignore the elements
>> they don't implement.  So either (1) add yet another specific operation
>> or (2) define a general VF setter, require drivers to set some flags
>> that indicate which VF attributes are settable, and check the flags in
>> rtnetlink.c before calling into the driver.
>
> both (1) and (2) makes sense to me, I am more leaned to (2), John, do
> we have a go from your side to post V1 for net-next? which of the
> options makes more sense to you?
>
> Or.
>

Either is fine if you prefer (2) that works for me. I'll get it
working with ixgbe after you post it.

.John
--
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