netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] devlink: expand the devlink-info documentation

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]

Message-ID: <20200324092450.33ec1d3f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:24:50 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
        eugenem@...com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, snelson@...sando.io,
        jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] devlink: expand the devlink-info
 documentation

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 22:33:26 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 3/23/20 9:15 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > We are having multiple review cycles with all vendors trying
> > to implement devlink-info. Let's expand the documentation with
> > more information about what's implemented and motivation behind
> > this interface in an attempt to make the implementations easier.
> > 
> > Describe what each info section is supposed to contain, and make
> > some references to other HW interfaces (PCI caps).
> > 
> > Document how firmware management is expected to look, to make
> > it clear how devlink-info and devlink-flash work in concert.
> > 
> > Name some future work.
> > 
> > v2: - improve wording
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>  
> 
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> One minor edit below, and
> 
> Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>

Will fix, thanks!

> >  Generic Versions
> >  ================
> >  
> >  It is expected that drivers use the following generic names for exporting
> > -version information. Other information may be exposed using driver-specific
> > -names, but these should be documented in the driver-specific file.
> > +version information. If a generic name for a given component doesn't exist, yet,  
> 
>                                                                         exist yet,
> 
> > +driver authors should consult existing driver-specific versions and attempt
> > +reuse. As last resort, if a component is truly unique, using driver-specific
> > +names is allowed, but these should be documented in the driver-specific file.
> > +
> > +All versions should try to use the following terminology: