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: <CAJL1qvHOFzAU=ciTR2A3AgoX622+c5wDYLEC07OaGwOZsC6jxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:59:26 +0200
From:	Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@....mellanox.co.il>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>, yevgenyp@...lanox.com,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Tal Alon <talal@...lanox.com>, shannon.nelson@...el.com,
	dledford@...hat.com, Ben Greear <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 8:05 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@....mellanox.co.il>
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:07:35 +0200
>
>> 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?
>>
>> Is a scheme based on netlink will be acceptable by you?
>
> A portable, well typed, interface that other vendors could use if their
> hardware had similar features would be acceptable.

Do you mean an interface implementation that reminds the ethtool
private flags scheme but implemented through netlink, allows
configuration without a netdevice and more flexibility?
--
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