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]
Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:07:56 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     "Bshara, Nafea" <nafea@...zon.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     "Jubran, Samih" <sameehj@...zon.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "Kiyanovski, Arthur" <akiyano@...zon.com>,
        "Bshara, Saeed" <saeedb@...zon.com>,
        "Tzalik, Guy" <gtzalik@...zon.com>,
        "Matushevsky, Alexander" <matua@...zon.com>,
        "Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
        "Saidi, Ali" <alisaidi@...zon.com>,
        "Machulsky, Zorik" <zorik@...zon.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Wilson, Matt" <msw@...zon.com>,
        "Belgazal, Netanel" <netanel@...zon.com>,
        "Herrenschmidt, Benjamin" <benh@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 net 00/11] Extending the ena driver to support new
 features and enhance performance

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 22:57:21 +0000, Bshara, Nafea wrote:
> > Having said that, it's entirely unclear to me what the user scenario is
> > here.  You say "which two devices related", yet you only have one bit,
> > so it can indicate that there is another device, not _which_ device is
> > related.  Information you can full well get from running lspci 🤷
> > Do the devices have the same PCI ID/vendor:model?  
> 
> Different model id

Okay, then you know which one is which.  Are there multiple ENAs but
one EFA?

> Will look into sysfs 

I still don't understand what is the problem you're trying to solve,
perhaps phys_port_id is the way to go...


The larger point here is that we can't guide you to the right API
unless we know what you're trying to achieve.  And we don't have 
the slightest clue of what're trying to achieve if uAPI is forwarded 
to the device.  

Honestly this is worse, and way more basic than I thought, I think
315c28d2b714 ("net: ena: ethtool: add extra properties retrieval via get_priv_flags")
needs to be reverted.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ