netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 2/2] nfp: separate the port's upper state with lower phy state

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:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 03:33:30 +0000
From:   Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 2/2] nfp: separate the port's upper state with
 lower phy state

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 20:12:25 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 02:57:34 +0000 Yinjun Zhang wrote:
> > > What is "upper", in this context? grep the networking code for upper,
> > > is that what you mean?
> >
> > Sorry, it's not that meaning. I'll remove this "upper", use netdev state
> > instead.
> 
> Alright, so legacy SR-IOV, no representors, and you just want to let
> the VFs talk to the world even when the PF netdev is ifdown'ed ?
> 
> Why?

I have to say most of other vendors behave like this. It's more practical
and required by users.