netdev - Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver

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]

Message-ID: <20240401120420.4d33a89b@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:04:20 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...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, 1 Apr 2024 21:10:33 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > 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.

Agreed! I think the core of our disagreement is whether and when
one set of people get to force their set of choices on other people.
Far be it from me to try to force my opinions in RDMA or the kernel
as a whole.

> > 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.

No disagreement here either, there's a trade-off here between what
you call waste of time and what I'd call fostering organic
collaboration. Even without taking your priorities into account -
whether reviewing device APIs is beneficial is (a) subjective, 
(b) subsystem dependent, so you should be allowed to make your choice
(within the bounds of Linus's trust). But what I keep arguing is that
so should we :|