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:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:57:29 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <>,
        Moshe Shemesh <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v3 01/14] devlink: Add reload action option
 to devlink reload command

Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:30:25PM CEST, wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:46:27 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >? Do we need such change there too or keep it as is, each action by itself
>> >and return what was performed ?  
>> Well, I don't know. User asks for X, X should be performed, not Y or Z.
>> So perhaps the return value is not needed.
>> Just driver advertizes it supports X, Y, Z and the users says:
>> 1) do X, driver does X
>> 2) do Y, driver does Y
>> 3) do Z, driver does Z
>> [
>> I think this kindof circles back to the original proposal...
>Why? User does not care if you activate new devlink params when
>activating new firmware. Trust me. So why make the user figure out
>which of all possible reset option they should select? If there is 
>a legitimate use case to limit what is reset - it should be handled
>by a separate negative attribute, like --live which says don't reset

I see. Okay. Could you please sum-up the interface as you propose it?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists