netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: phy: b53: switchdev driver for Broadcom BCM53xx switches

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: <20150226042158.GF1332@gospo.home.greyhouse.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2015 23:21:58 -0500
From:	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Rafa?? Mi??ecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jonas Gorski <jogo@...nwrt.org>,
	Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
	Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: b53: switchdev driver for Broadcom BCM53xx
 switches

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:53:24PM -0800, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Andy Gospodarek
> <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 03:03:56PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > [...]
> >>
> >> What we don't want is X chip families and Y different ways to
> >> configure the features. Ideal we want X chip families, and one way to
> >> configure them all.
> >
> > This statement is really my primary concern.  There is lots of interest
> > around hardware offload at this point and it seems like there is a risk
> > that a lack of consistency can create problems.
> >
> > I think these patches are great as they allow for the programming of the
> > offload hardware (and it has been pointed out that this drastically
> > increases performance), but one concern I have with this patch (related
> > to this) is that I'm not sure there is a major need to create netdevs
> > automatically if there is not the ability to rx/tx actual frames on
> > these interfaces.
> 
> Even when not used for rx/tx to CPU, it seems the netdevs are still
> useful as an anchor to build higher-level constructs such as bridge or
> bond, and to hang stuff like netdev stats or ethtool-ish things.
> 

I agree that they are useful, but now we are really dealing with a
netdev that is slightly lower functionality than we expect from a netdev
right now.

--
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