netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 04/16] sfc_ef100: skeleton EF100 PF driver

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: <20200721101559.781cad27@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:15:59 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Cc:     <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kernel test robot" <lkp@...el.com>, <kbuild-all@...ts.01.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 04/16] sfc_ef100: skeleton EF100 PF driver

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:09:13 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> On 21/07/2020 17:45, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:48:00 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:  
> >> Aaaaargh; does anyone have any bright ideas?  
> > No bright ideas. Why do you want the driver to be modular in the first
> > place?  
> Well, 'sfc' already is, and I'm not sure changing that is an option
>  (wouldn't it break users' scripts?).  And I find development is a lot
>  easier if you can just rebuild a module and reload it rather than
>  having to wait for LD to put together a whole new vmlinux.
> 
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen a reason to break up vendor drivers
> > for high performance NICs into multiple modules.  
> So, what are you suggesting?

I was talking about option 2 below, yes.

> 1) both drivers are builtin-only
> 2) a single module containing both drivers
> 3) something else?
> 
> Both (1) and (2) would allow replacing the linker trick with an if()
>  on efx->revision or an efx->type-> function with INDIRECT_CALLABLE.
> 
> I don't know for sure but I suspect we made the drivers separate
>  modules simply because we could (or so we thought) and we didn't
>  know for certain no-one would ever want the extra flexibility.
> 
> I'll ask around and see if there's any reason we can't do (2).
> 
> -ed