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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230518130452-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 13:10:29 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> To: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com> Cc: Emil Tantilov <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, shannon.nelson@....com, simon.horman@...igine.com, leon@...nel.org, decot@...gle.com, willemb@...gle.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v4 00/15] Introduce Intel IDPF driver On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:19:31AM -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > > > On 5/11/2023 11:34 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 12:43:11PM -0700, Emil Tantilov wrote: > > > This patch series introduces the Intel Infrastructure Data Path Function > > > (IDPF) driver. It is used for both physical and virtual functions. Except > > > for some of the device operations the rest of the functionality is the > > > same for both PF and VF. IDPF uses virtchnl version2 opcodes and > > > structures defined in the virtchnl2 header file which helps the driver > > > to learn the capabilities and register offsets from the device > > > Control Plane (CP) instead of assuming the default values. > > > > So, is this for merge in the next cycle? Should this be an RFC rather? > > It seems unlikely that the IDPF specification will be finalized by that > > time - how are you going to handle any specification changes? > > Yes. we would like this driver to be merged in the next cycle(6.5). > Based on the community feedback on v1 version of the driver, we removed all > references to OASIS standard and at this time this is an intel vendor > driver. > > Links to v1 and v2 discussion threads > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230329140404.1647925-1-pavan.kumar.linga@intel.com/ > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230411011354.2619359-1-pavan.kumar.linga@intel.com/ > > The v1->v2 change log reflects this update. > v1 --> v2: link [1] > * removed the OASIS reference in the commit message to make it clear > that this is an Intel vendor specific driver Yes this makes sense. > Any IDPF specification updates would be handled as part of the changes that > would be required to make this a common standards driver. So my question is, would it make sense to update Kconfig and module name to be "ipu" or if you prefer "intel-idpf" to make it clear this is currently an Intel vendor specific driver? And then when you make it a common standards driver rename it to idpf? The point being to help make sure users are not confused about whether they got a driver with or without IDPF updates. It's not critical I guess but seems like a good idea. WDYT? -- MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists