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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAACQVJokoZYSuus+_0NOs4Mjw7i-JnCOU-wz2tFBZS4a7Lqdzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:14:02 +0530
From:   Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "michael.chan@...adcom.com" <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/8] devlink: Add configuration parameters
 support for devlink_port

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.