netdev - driver uABI review list? (was: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 0/3] nfp: support VF multi-queues configuration)

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]

Message-ID: <20220921063448.5b0dd32b@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 06:34:48 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...igine.com, Diana Wang <na.wang@...igine.com>,
        Peng Zhang <peng.zhang@...igine.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: driver uABI review list? (was: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 0/3] nfp:
 support VF multi-queues configuration)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:14:16 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
> this short series adds the max_vf_queue generic devlink device parameter,
> the intention of this is to allow configuration of the number of queues
> associated with VFs, and facilitates having VFs with different queue
> counts.
> 
> The series also adds support for multi-queue VFs to the nfp driver
> and support for the max_vf_queue feature described above.

I think a similar API was discussed in the past by... Broadcom?
IIRC they wanted more flexibility, i.e. being able to set the
guaranteed and max allowed queue count.

Overall this seems like a typical resource division problem so 
we should try to use the devlink resource API or similar. More 
complex policies like guaranteed+max are going to be a pain over
params.

I wanted to ask a more general question, however. I see that you
haven't CCed even the major (for some def.) vendors' maintainers.

Would it be helpful for participation if we had a separate mailing 
list for discussing driver uAPI introduction which would hopefully 
be lower traffic? Or perhaps we can require a subject tag ([PATCH
net-next uapi] ?) so that people can set up email filters?

The cost is obviously yet another process thing to remember, and 
while this is nothing that lore+lei can't already do based on file 
path filters - I doubt y'all care enough to set that up for
yourselves... :)