[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130722114944.GA1552@minipsycho.orion>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:49:44 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Narendra_K@...l.com
Cc: bhutchings@...arflare.com, or.gerlitz@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, john.r.fastabend@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Add phys_port identifier to struct
net_device and export it to sysfs
Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:46:01PM CEST, Narendra_K@...l.com wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 08:18:23PM +0530, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 14:14 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > Sorry, I missed that fact that initially you responded on this thread
>> >
>> > > The value could be anything. But note that you have to have different
>> > > values for card1-port1,2 and card2-port1,2
>> >
>> > why?
>>
>> The intent is to identify physical ports uniquely, so userland can tell
>> whether two devices are backed by the same physical port.
>>
>> But there's no requirement on the format, so you could ensure that one
>> byte of this identifier is the port number on the board.
>
>Would it be useful to embed the port number at a known offset to ensure
>uniformity across all drivers, if a driver choses to embed port number
>as part of phys_port_id ?
I would not do that. Just let it be meaningless number. That is best for
security reasons as well.
>
>--
>With regards,
>Narendra K
>Linux Engineering
>Dell Inc.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists