netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] mlx4_en: Do not set dev

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: <CAJZOPZLv9aidr7fV_2ntqy1DeZZGd9yUHZT1Dqbk=w-bssw69Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:55:34 +0300
From:	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
To:	Narendra_K@...l.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
	bhutchings@...arflare.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] mlx4_en: Do not set dev_id to port number

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:06 PM, <Narendra_K@...l.com> wrote:
> Port number should not be stored in dev_id. 'dev_id' field was
> intended to be used to differentiate between multiple devices
> which share the same MAC address.

Maybe you want to say that dev_id is **now** intended to differentiate
between multiple devices which share the same MAC address? the reason
that mlx4_en and IPoIB use this field is

1. the Mellanox exposes one PCI function but has two ports with a
netdevice set on each

2. there was no standard way to expose the port number used by two
netdevices that share the same PCI function

3. here http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/53547/ we were suggested by
the netdev maintainers to use that field

This patch introduces a regression and can't get in without a
replacment mechanism.

Or.
--
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