netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Create common DPLL/clock configuration API

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: <20220930073312.23685d5d@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:33:12 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>,
        Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...com>, Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Create common DPLL/clock configuration API

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:33:57 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Also, did you consider usage of sysfs? Why it isn't a better fit than
> >> netlink?  
> >
> >We already have sysfs implemented in the ptp_ocp driver. But it looks like
> >more hardware is going to be available soon with almost the same functions,
> >so it would be great to have common protocol to configure such devices.  
> 
> Sure, but more hw does not mean you can't use sysfs. Take netdev as an
> example. The sysfs exposed for it is implemented net/core/net-sysfs.c
> and is exposed for all netdev instances, no matter what the
> driver/hardware is.

Wait, *you* are suggesting someone uses sysfs instead of netlink?

Could you say more because I feel like that's kicking the absolute.