[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240401181033.GB11187@unreal>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 21:10:33 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Leonid Bloch <lbloch@...dia.com>,
Itay Avraham <itayavr@...dia.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
Junxian Huang <huangjunxian6@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 07:50:03AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 15:30:03 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > The proposal is an attempt at a common interface and common tooling to a
> > > degree but independent of any specific subsystem of which many are
> > > supported by the device.
> > >
> > > Your responses continue to align with the notion that because the device
> > > can spit out ethernet frames, all diagnostics, debugging, configuration,
> > > etc. MUST go through networking APIs.
> > >
> > > You seem unwilling to acknowledge that devices can work for various use
> > > cases without a netdev driver, and thus aspects of managing that device
> > > should be done outside of a netdev driver.
> >
> > HNS driver is a good example of such device. It has nothing to do with
> > netdev and needs common and reliable way to configure FW.
>
> Sorry, I have a completely different reading of that thread.
> Thanks for bringing it up, tho.
Different people have different opinions, and it is fine.
>
> As I said multiple times I agree that configuring custom parameters
> in RDMA is a necessity. Junxian's approach of putting such code in
> the RDMA driver / subsystem is more than reasonable. Even better,
> it looks like the API is fairly narrowly defined.
It was a tiny example, which emphasizes the need for a common way.
If we were listen to average RDMA driver author, we would find ourselves
with gazillion different sysfs knobs which do nothing except sending
raw data to FW. As a subsystem, we don't want to waste our time in
not-beneficial to the subsystem code.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists