netdev - Re: 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]

Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 15:39:48 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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: Re: driver uABI review list? (was: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 0/3] nfp:
 support VF multi-queues configuration)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 06:34:48AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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.

Sorry about that. I should have considered doing so in the first place.

> 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... :)

Not defending myself here. And not sure if this is helpful.
But the issue for me at the time was not being clear on how to
reach the right audience.