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:   Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:04:18 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <>,
        Jacob Keller <>,,,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        Vasundhara Volam <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to
 devlink reload command

Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 10:57:03PM CEST, wrote:
>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.

Clear actions, that is what I'm fine with.

But not sure how you think we can achieve no driver-specific defaults.
We have them already :/ I don't think we can easily remove them and not
break user expectations.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists