[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181211101839.01d817ac@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:18:39 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, michael.chan@...adcom.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 RFC 7/8] devlink: Add a generic port
parameter
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:16:47 +0530, Vasundhara Volam wrote:
> wake-on-lan - Enables Wake on Lan for this port. If enabled,
> the controller asserts a wake pin based on the wake-on-lan type.
>
> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
As explained previously I think it's a very bad idea to add existing
configuration options to devlink, just because devlink has the ability
to persist the setting in NVM. Especially that for WoL you have to get
the link up so you potentially have all link config stuff as well. And
that n-tuple filters are one of the WoL options, meaning we'd need the
ability to persist n-tuple filters via devlink.
Your effort would be far better spent helping with migrating ethtool to
netlink, and allowing persisting there.
I have not heard any reason why devlink is a better fit. I can imagine
you're just doing it here because it's less effort for you since
ethtool is not yet migrated.
So I'm opposed, let's call it a nack.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists