netdev - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/2] octeon_ep: implement device unload control net 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: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:54:50 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Shinas Rasheed <srasheed@...vell.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Haseeb Gani
 <hgani@...vell.com>, Vimlesh Kumar <vimleshk@...vell.com>,
 "egallen@...hat.com" <egallen@...hat.com>, "mschmidt@...hat.com"
 <mschmidt@...hat.com>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 "horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>, "davem@...emloft.net"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, "wizhao@...hat.com" <wizhao@...hat.com>,
 "konguyen@...hat.com" <konguyen@...hat.com>, Veerasenareddy Burru
 <vburru@...vell.com>, Sathesh B Edara <sedara@...vell.com>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/2] octeon_ep: implement device
 unload control net API

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:08:26 +0000 Shinas Rasheed wrote:
> > Yes, I think it went in before I had time to nack it.
> > I'm strongly against using the IP stack to talk to FW,
> > if you read the ML you would know it.
> > 
> > No new patches to octep_ctrl_net will be accepted.  
> 
> Control net doesn't use the IP stack at all. It's a simple
> producer-consumer based ring mechanism using PCIe BAR4 memory.
> Sorry maybe the nomenclature suggests something of that nature.

Ah, got it. I read that as "separate netdev for control", my bad.
Just one nit then:

>+	dev_info(&oct->pdev->dev, "Sending dev_unload msg to fw\n");

Is it really necessary to print this at info level for each remove?
Remove is a normal part of operation and we shouldn't spam logs
unless we have a good reason..