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: <20150312134651.GB32053@kroah.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:46:51 +0100
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Cc:	Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@....mellanox.co.il>,
	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 Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 02:02:05PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> 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?

No, configfs works quite well for a number of other kernel subsystems,
so please leave them alone here.

> (2) does
> programmable interface such as netlink is the way to go for our purposes
> here (and elsewhere)?

I don't know, that's up to the network developers, but you had better
not abuse the firmware download inteface, that's what I strongly
objected to originally.

good luck,

greg k-h
--
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