netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V1 0/3] net/mlx4_core: Allow setting init-time device specific parameters

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: <5501803D.8020101@mellanox.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:02:05 +0200
From:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@....mellanox.co.il>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>,
	<yevgenyp@...lanox.com>, Tal Alon <talal@...lanox.com>,
	<shannon.nelson@...el.com>, <dledford@...hat.com>,
	<greearb@...delatech.com>, <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>,
	<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	<john.ronciak@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V1 0/3] net/mlx4_core: Allow setting init-time
 device specific parameters

On 3/12/2015 11:00 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:07:35AM +0200, Hadar Hen Zion wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:14 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>> From: Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:08:50 +0200
>>>
>>>> Also, customers are paying for a very sophisticated piece of hardware, and we would like to enable power user to tweak it in some situtations. Of course the default mode should be used in 99% of the use cases.
>>> How much money someone pays for your hardware has nothing to do with the standards by which we design userspace interfaces to configure these devices.
>>>
>>> These textual interfaces are arbitrary, and you are choosing it only because you cannot come up with a more reasonable scheme,
>>>
>>> I'm not applying these changes.
>>> ---
>> In previous conversations Greg suggested us to use configfs.
>>
>> Is this case a misuse of configfs? maybe configfs should be deprecated... Greg?
> No, this has nothing to do with the validity of configfs, please re-read what David said to you.

Greg,

So.. M2-- reading Dave's words I understand that he's against textual 
interfacessuch as configfs and prefers others. This brings two questions 
to the table (1) do we need to deprecate these textual interfaces / 
configfs and avoid using them for configuration purposes with new code? 
(2) does programmable interface such as netlink is the way to go for our 
purposes here (and elsewhere)?

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