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]

Message-ID: <YyydRHGFm/M6rSP5@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 19:37:08 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: driver uABI review list? (was: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 0/3] nfp:
 support VF multi-queues configuration)

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 07:04:19PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> 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.
> 
> <...>
> 
> > Would it be helpful for participation if we had a separate mailing 
> > list for discussing driver uAPI introduction which would hopefully 
> > be lower traffic?
> 
> Please don't. It will cause to an opposite situation where UAPI
> discussions will be hidden from most people. IMHO, every net vendor
> should be registered to netdev mailing list and read, review and
> participate.

Good in theory, but how often do you really see it happen?

How many vendor developers really do review other vendors drivers
patches. It tends to be vendor neutral reviewers who do reviews across
multiple vendors. I wish there was more cross vendor review, it would
prevent having to repeat the same review comments again and again.
There is probably also a lot of good ideas in some drivers which
should be spread to other drivers. But if you don't look outside your
silo, you are blind to them.

However, i do agree, although netdev is not perfect, i think it is
better than another list which will get even more ignored.

      Andrew