netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] ionic: add devlink firmware update

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:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:36:05 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc:     Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] ionic: add devlink firmware update

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:15:28 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
> On 9/10/2020 10:56 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > IOW drop the component parameter from the normal helper, cause almost
> > nobody uses that. The add a more full featured __ version, which would
> > take the arg struct, the struct would include the timeout value.
> >   
> I would point out that the ice driver does use it to help indicate which
> section of the flash is currently being updated.
> 
> i.e.
> 
> $ devlink dev flash pci/0000:af:00.0 file firmware.bin
> Preparing to flash
> [fw.mgmt] Erasing
> [fw.mgmt] Erasing done
> [fw.mgmt] Flashing 100%
> [fw.mgmt] Flashing done 100%
> [fw.undi] Erasing
> [fw.undi] Erasing done
> [fw.undi] Flashing 100%
> [fw.undi] Flashing done 100%
> [fw.netlist] Erasing
> [fw.netlist] Erasing done
> [fw.netlist] Flashing 100%
> [fw.netlist] Flashing done 100%
> 
> I'd like to keep that, as it helps tell which component is currently
> being updated. If we drop this, then either I have to manually build
> strings which include the component name, or we lose this information on
> display.

Thanks for pointing that out. My recollection was that ice and netdevsim
were the only two users, so I thought those could use the full __*
helper and pass an arg struct. But no strong feelings.