netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V3 4/8] devlink: Expose port function commands to control RoCE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 18:02:34 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Shannon Nelson <shnelson@....com>
Cc:     Shay Drory <shayd@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, danielj@...dia.com, yishaih@...dia.com,
        jiri@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com, parav@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3 4/8] devlink: Expose port function commands
 to control RoCE

On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 15:37:26 -0800 Shannon Nelson wrote:
> >   enum devlink_port_function_attr {
> >          DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_UNSPEC,
> >          DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_HW_ADDR,     /* binary */
> >          DEVLINK_PORT_FN_ATTR_STATE,     /* u8 */
> >          DEVLINK_PORT_FN_ATTR_OPSTATE,   /* u8 */
> > +       DEVLINK_PORT_FN_ATTR_CAPS,      /* bitfield32 */  
> 
> Will 32 bits be enough, or should we start off with u64?  It will 
> probably be fine, but since we're setting a uapi thing here we probably 
> want to be sure we won't need to change it in the future.

Ah, if only variable size integer types from Olek were ready :(

Unfortunately there is no bf64 today, so we'd either have to add soon
to be deprecated bf64 or hold off waiting for Olek...
I reckon the dumb thing of merging bf32 may be the best choice right
now :(