netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 0/2] ice: support FEC automatic disable

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:57:50 +0000
From:   "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
CC:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 0/2] ice: support FEC automatic disable



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 9:30 AM
> To: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
> Cc: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>; Saeed Mahameed
> <saeedm@...dia.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] ice: support FEC automatic disable
> 
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 10:08:05 +0300 Gal Pressman wrote:
> > Then maybe adding a new flag is the right thing to do here.
> >
> > That way the existing auto mode will keep its current meaning (all modes
> > including off), which you'll be able to support on newer firmware
> > versions, and the new auto flag (all modes excluding off) will be
> > supported on all firmware versions.
> > Then maybe we can even add support for the new flag in mlx5 (I need to
> > check whether that's feasible with our hardware).
> 
> Sorry, I misinterpreted your previous reply, somehow I thought you
> quoted option (3), because my fallible reading of mlx5 was that it
> accepts multiple flags.
> 
> (First) option 2 is fine.
> 


Even though existing behavior doesn't do that for ice right now and wouldn't be able to do that properly with old firmware?

Thanks,
Jake

> Do you happen to have a link to what SONiC defined?
> We really need to establish some expectations before we start extending
> the API. Naively I thought the IEEE spec was more prescriptive :(

Yea its a bit unfortunate :(