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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190219122714.GE3080@nanopsycho> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:27:14 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> To: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v3 00/21] ethtool netlink interface, part 1 Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:57:27PM CET, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote: >On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:35:08AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >- some features provided by ethtool would rather belong to devlink (and >> > some are already superseded by devlink); however, only few drivers >> > provide devlink interface at the moment and as recent discussion on >> > flashing revealed, we cannot rely on devlink's presence >> >> Could you explain why please? > >What I mean is the problem discussed under Jakub's devlink flash >patchset: that he couldn't implement only the devlink callback in nfp >and rely on the generic fallback to devlink because it wouldn't work if >devlink is built as a module. So let's fix that. > >But I think this should be addressed. If we agree that flashing (and >other features provided by ethtool at the moment) rather belongs to >devlink (which nobody seems to oppose), we should rather try to make it >possible for drivers to provide only the devlink callback and gradually >move all in-tree drivers to doing so. (And one day, remove it from >ethtool_ops.) It doesn't seem to make much sense to have devlink as >a module in such scenario. Agreed. > >Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists