netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4 net-next] net: phy: add Generic Netlink Ethernet switch configuration 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: <5270F282.6000708@mojatatu.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:50:26 -0400
From:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:	mbizon@...ebox.fr
CC:	Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>,
	Jonas Gorski <jogo@...nwrt.org>,
	Gary Thomas <gary@...assoc.com>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 net-next] net: phy: add Generic Netlink Ethernet switch
 configuration API

On 10/29/13 19:12, Maxime Bizon wrote:

>
>  From a user POV, when you see a netdevice, you expect to be able to
> receive or send packets from/to it. The ability to read stats/link is
> only a secondary feature.
>

The important part is all the APIs stay consistent. I can use
same netlink calls. ifconfig works.
iproute2 works. People have written books on this stuff - we dont
have MCSE(Must Call Software Engineer) certification, but this is
as close as it gets. i.e the knowledge has been commoditized, even
my kid knows how to use these tools.

If i can get stats by doing ifconfig - that should provide illusion that
the netdevice is sending/receiving packets.

> Wireless subsystem moved away from using dummy/additional netdevices
> because it caused confusion.
>

This is a good arguement.
Can we hear a little more about this?

> multiqueue devices forced us to separate struct netdevice and struct
> netdev_queue, maybe it's time for more surgery :)
>

I think that would be a reasonable thing to do if it becomes necessary.

cheers,
jamal

--
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