netdev - Re: [net-next 1/4] gve: Add basic driver framework for Compute Engine Virtual NIC

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: <20190628114615.4fc81791@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:46:15 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Catherine Sullivan <csully@...gle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Sagi Shahar <sagis@...gle.com>,
        Jon Olson <jonolson@...gle.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Luigi Rizzo <lrizzo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/4] gve: Add basic driver framework for Compute
 Engine Virtual NIC

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:52:27 -0700, Catherine Sullivan wrote:
> > > +if NET_VENDOR_GOOGLE
> > > +
> > > +config GVE
> > > +     tristate "Google Virtual NIC (gVNIC) support"
> > > +     depends on (PCI_MSI && X86)  
> >
> > We usually prefer for drivers not to depend on the platform unless
> > really necessary, but IDK how that applies to the curious new world
> > of NICs nobody can buy :)  
> 
> This is the only platform it will ever need to run on so we would really
> prefer to not have to support others :)

I think the motivation is partially to force the uniform use of generic
APIs across the drivers, so that re-factoring of core code is easier.
Do you have any specific pain-points in mind where x86 dependency
simplifies things? If not I think it's a better default to not have it.
Not a big deal, though.