[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CO1PR11MB508953EAEE7A719D2F9BF9F5D69E9@CO1PR11MB5089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 16:32:30 +0000
From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [net-next PATCH 1/2] devlink: add dry run attribute to flash
update
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 6:14 PM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/2] devlink: add dry run attribute to flash update
>
> Hm, yes. Don't invest too much effort into rendering per-cmd policies
> right now, tho. I've started working on putting the parsing policies
> in YAML last Friday. This way we can auto-gen the policy for the kernel
> and user space can auto-gen the parser/nl TLV writer. Long story short
> we can kill two birds with one stone if you hold off until I have the
> format ironed out. For now maybe just fork the policies into two -
> with and without dry run attr. We'll improve the granularity later
> when doing the YAML conversion.
Any update on this?
FWIW I started looking at iproute2 code to dump policy and check whether a specific attribute is accepted by the kernel.
Thanks,
Jake
Powered by blists - more mailing lists