netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 25/28] Documentation: DSA: Describe how probe of DSA and switches work.

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: <20151225100002.GA7136@lunn.ch>
Date:	Fri, 25 Dec 2015 11:00:02 +0100
From:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:	narmstrong@...libre.com, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 25/28] Documentation: DSA: Describe how probe of DSA
 and switches work.

> > It sounds like you want to 'optimise' for a DSA cluster consisting of
> > a single switch, throwing away the D in DSA. Now the SF2 is a bit
> > 'odd'. Since it is embedded in the SoC, you cannot have multiple of
> > them in a cluster. So such an optimization could make sense for the
> > SF2. But can we do this without adding too more complexity?
> 
> The distributed case is the complex one, the one with a single switch
> hanging off an Ethernet MAC is the most common one and is much simpler
> to deal with.

Sure, boards with multiple switches don't happen very often, but they
do exist. If we can solve the general case, a single switch just
works. The reverse is not true. Which is why i've been doing all my
development work on a board with three switches. And in theory, i
could even partition these into two DSA clusters!

	    Andrew
--
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