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  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:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:57:03 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.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 Mon, 3 Aug 2020 16:14:42 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >devlink dev reload [ net-ns-respawn { PID | NAME | ID } ] [ driver-param-init
> >] [ fw-activate [ --live] ]  
> 
> Jakub, why do you prefer to have another extra level-specific option
> "live"? I think it is clear to have it as a separate level. The behaviour
> of the operation is quite different.

I was trying to avoid having to provide a Cartesian product of
operation and system disruption level, if any other action can
be done "live" at some point.

But no strong feelings about that one.

Really, as long as there is no driver-specific defaults (or as 
little driver-specific anything as possible) and user actions 
are clearly expressed (fw-reset does not necessarily imply
fw-activation) - the API will be fine IMO.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists