netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add tx_scheduling

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, 27 Feb 2024 16:41:52 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	horms@...nel.org, Lukasz Czapnik <lukasz.czapnik@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v4 4/5] ice: Add
 tx_scheduling_layers devlink param

> What if it would not be unique, should they then proceed to add generic
> (other word would be "common") param, and make the other driver/s use
> it? Without deprecating the old method ofc.

If it is useful, somebody else will copy it and it will become
common. If nobody copies it, its probably not useful :-)

A lot of what we do in networking comes from standard. Its the
standards which gives us interoperability. Also, there is the saying,
form follows function. There are only so many ways you can implement
the same thing.

Is anybody truly building unique hardware, whos form somehow does not
follow function and is yet still standards compliant? More likely,
they are just the first, and others will copy or re-invent it sooner
or later.

So for me, unique is a pretty high bar to reach.

	Andrew