netdev - Re: [net-next 03/15] net/mlx5e: PFC stall prevention support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:38:03 +0300
From:   Gal Pressman <galp@...lanox.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Inbar Karmy <inbark@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 03/15] net/mlx5e: PFC stall prevention support

On 25-Mar-18 19:18, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> Shouldn't you map a value of MLX5E_PFC_PREVEN_AUTO_TOUT_MSEC back to 
>>> PFC_STORM_PREVENTION_AUTO?
>>
>> We discussed this point internally, mapping MLX5E_PFC_PREVEN_AUTO_TOUT_MSEC (100) to
>> PFC_STORM_PREVENTION_AUTO might cause confusion when the user explicitly asks for 100msec timeout
>> and gets auto in his following query.
>> Also, this way the "auto" timeout is visible to the user, which might help him get an initial
>> clue of which values are recommended.
> 
> Yes, this is a fair point, which is why i asked the question. Either
> way, it can cause confusion. 'I configured it to auto, but it always
> returns 100, not auto.'
> 
> Whatever is decided, it should be consistent across drivers. So please
> add some documentation to the ethtool header file about what is
> expected.

We didn't want to limit other drivers implementation, but I agree that
consistency across drivers is important in this case.
We will find a proper place to document it.

> 
> 	Andrew
>