netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to devlink reload command

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:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:47:00 -0700
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to
 devlink reload command



On 7/28/2020 6:58 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 02:58:02AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:02:21 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
>>> Add devlink reload level to allow the user to request a specific reload
>>> level. The level parameter is optional, if not specified then driver's
>>> default reload level is used (backward compatible).
>>
>> Please don't leave space for driver-specific behavior. The OS is
>> supposed to abstract device differences away.
> 
> But this is needed to maintain the existing behaviour which is different
> for different drivers.
> 

Which drivers behave differently here?