netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction

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: <20171227082331.GA10517@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:23:31 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, arkadis@...lanox.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com,
        idosch@...lanox.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, linville@...driver.com,
        gospo@...adcom.com, steven.lin1@...adcom.com, yuvalm@...lanox.com,
        ogerlitz@...lanox.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction

> >$ devlink resource show pci/0000:03:00.0
> >pci/0000:03:00.0:
> >  name kvd size 245760 size_valid true
> >  resources:
> >    name linear size 98304 occ 0
> >    name hash_double size 60416
> >    name hash_single size 87040
> >
> >So this 2700 has 3 resources that can be managed -- some table or
> >resource or something named 'kvd' with linear, hash_double and
> >hash_single sub-resources. What are these names referring too? The above
> >output gives no description, and 'kvd' is not an industry term. Further,
> 
> This are internal resources specific to the ASIC. Would you like some
> description to each or something like that?

The fact you have decided to expose them means you expect people to
change them. So yes, they need to be documented. Maybe add something
to Documentation/ABI/stable/

> So the showed relation to dpipe table would be enougn or you would still
> like to see some description? I don't like the description concept here
> as the relations to dpipe table should tell user exactly what he needs
> to know.

Documenting the ABI is good practice.

   Andrew