[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170420.112021.167483274923043370.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com
Cc: gerlitz.or@...il.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
mitch.a.williams@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com, jogreene@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 04/14] i40e: dump VF information in debugfs
From: "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:09:28 +0000
>> > Dump some internal state about VFs through debugfs. This provides
>> > information not available with 'ip link show'.
>>
>> such as?
>>
>> donnwantobethedebugfspolice, but still, in the 2-3 times we tried to push
>> debugfs to MLNX NIC drivers, Dave disallowed that, and lately the switch
>> team even went further and deleted that portion of the mlxsw driver -- all to
>> all, I don't see much point for these type of changes, thoughts?
>
> Don't want to hikjack your thread, but continuing this topic -
> Is there some flat-out disapproval for debugfs in net-next now?
>
> We're currently internally engaged with adding qed support for register dumps
> [~equivalents for `ethtool -d' outputs] through debugfs, on behalf of storage
> drivers [qedi/qedf] lacking the API for doing that.
I really hate to see debugfs things in networking drivers. It's a
complete cop out for doing things properly.
I push back, but I can only fight too much. If people want to keep
adding stupid poorly designed crap endlessly to their drivers there
is only so much I can do...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists