netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/8] devlink: Add configuration parameters support for devlink

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:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:25:10 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com
Cc:     jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
        jiri@...lanox.com, mkubecek@...e.cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/8] devlink: Add configuration parameters
 support for devlink_port

From: Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:14:02 +0530

> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:28 AM Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:00:19 +0530, Vasundhara Volam wrote:
>> > This patchset adds support for configuration parameters setting through
>> > devlink_port.  Each device registers supported configuration parameters
>> > table.
>> >
>> > The user can retrieve data on these parameters by
>> > "devlink port param show" command and can set new value to a
>> > parameter by "devlink port param set" command.
>> > All configuration modes supported by devlink_dev are supported
>> > by devlink_port also.
>>
>> Hm, I think we were kind of going somewhere with the ethtool/nl
>> attribute encapsulation idea.  You seem to have ignored those comments
>> on v7 and reposted v8 a day after.
> Jakub, I have added the idea of future expansion of WOL in my v8 cover letter
> mentioning the same. I will work on this as a future patchset.
>>
>> I think we should explore the nesting further.  The only obstacle is
>> that ethtool netlink conversion is not yet finished, but that's just
>> a simple matter of programming.  Do you disagree with that direction?
>> Please comment.
> No, I agree with you about ethtool netlink encapsulation.

This is great.

But this has to be resolved before the next merge window, otherwise I will
really have to revert this patch series.  You have been warned, so do not
let this slip under the cracks.

Thank you.