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]

Date:   Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:35:07 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Create common DPLL/clock configuration API

Sat, Oct 01, 2022 at 04:18:27PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 07:47:24 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> 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.  
>> 
>> I don't understand why that would be a problem. 
>
>Why did you do devlink over netlink then?

There were good reasons why to use netlink, many of those. I find it
redundant to list them here.


>The bus device is already there in sysfs.
>
>> What I'm trying to say
>> is, perhaps sysfs is a better API for this purpose. The API looks very
>> neat and there is no probabilito of huge grow.
>
>"this API is nice and small" said everyone about every new API ever,
>APIs grow.

Sure, what what are the odds.


>
>> Also, with sysfs, you
>> don't need userspace app to do basic work with the api. In this case, I
>> don't see why the app is needed.
>
>Yes, with the YAML specs you don't need a per-family APP.
>A generic app can support any family, just JSON in JSON out.
>DPLL-nl will come with a YAML spec.

Yeah, but still. For sysfs, you don't need any app.
Just saying.


>
>> These are 2 biggest arguments for sysfs in this case as I see it.
>
>2 biggest arguments? Is "this API is small" one of the _biggest_
>arguments you see? I don't think it's an argument at all. The OCP PTP
>driver started small and now its not small. And the files don't even
>follow sysfs rules. Trust me, we have some experience here :/

No problem. I don't mind one bit, don't get me wrong :)
I just pointed out alternative.


>
>As I said to you in private I feel like there may be some political
>games being played here, so I'd like to urge you to focus on real
>issues.

I don't know anything about any politics. I don't care about it at all
to be honest. You know me :)