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]

Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:09:42 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ogerlitz@...lanox.com
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hadarh@....mellanox.co.il,
	amirv@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, hadarh@...lanox.com,
	yevgenyp@...lanox.com, 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

From: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:02:05 +0200

> 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)?

Do not try to hijack a discussion about what interfaces you should be
using for your use case into a discussion about deprecating configfs.
--
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