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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:04:47 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	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

Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:41:52PM CET, andrew@...n.ch wrote:
>> 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.

Wait, standard in protocol sense is completely parallel to the hw/fw
implementations. They may be (and in reality they are) a lots of
tunables to tweak specific hw/fw internals. So modern nics are very
unique. Still providing the same inputs and outputs, protocol-wise.


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