netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v6 2/6] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 9 Apr 2023 09:51:48 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, poros <poros@...hat.com>,
        mschmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Olech, Milena" <milena.olech@...el.com>,
        "Michalik, Michal" <michal.michalik@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 2/6] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:18:12PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 10:22:33 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> So basically you say, you can have 2 approaches in app:
>> 1)
>> id = dpll_device_get_id("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1")
>> dpll_device_set(id, something);
>> dpll_device_set(id, something);
>> dpll_device_set(id, something);
>> 2):
>> dpll_device_set("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1, something);
>> dpll_device_set("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1, something);
>> dpll_device_set("ice/c92d02a7129f4747/1, something);
>> 
>> What is exactly benefit of the first one? Why to have 2 handles? Devlink
>> is a nice example of 2) approach, no problem there.
>
>IMHO for devlink the neatness of using the name came from the fact 
>that the device name was meaningful. 
>
>With the advent of auxbus that's no longer the case.
>
>In fact it seems more than likely that changing the name to auxbus
>will break FW update scripts. Maybe nobody has complained yet only
>because prod adoption of these APIs is generally lacking :(
>
>I agree that supporting both name and ID is pointless, user space can
>translate between the two trivially all by itself. But I'd lean towards
>deleting the name support not the ID support :(

Wait, not sure you get the format of the "name". It does not contain any
bus address, so the auxdev issue you pointed out is not applicable.
It is driver/clock_id/index.
All 3 are stable and user can rely on them. Do you see any issue in
that?