[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170626133439.GB2623@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:34:39 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Gal Pressman <galp@...lanox.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Vidya Sagar Ravipati <vidya@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
David Decotigny <decot@...glers.com>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] ethtool: Add link down reason callback
> The driver has a good intimate information of his device
> implementation, and hence an analysis done by the device vendor is
> favorable.
For a firmware based NIC, maybe. For a discrete NIC, making use of all
the Linux subsystems, this is going to be hard from within the kernel.
> The driver provider can perform the analysis inside the device (firmware) or in the driver according to his preferences.
> We believe that since devices are becoming smarter, more analysis will be done by the device itself, which has more
> information and faster access.
> Smart NICs/SoCs are very popular this days and this API takes into account the different architectures.
>
> Since this callback is optional, a user space analysis tool can be added in the future providing more generic analysis approach for
> unsupported devices.
I still fear this is going to be an ethtool call with only one user.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists