netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 9/9] ethtool: Add ability to flash transceiver modules' firmware

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <649f6db7-d0ef-41da-b2bb-e91fd0c21c7a@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 01:53:21 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
	"linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"sdf@...gle.com" <sdf@...gle.com>,
	"kory.maincent@...tlin.com" <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
	"maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com" <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
	"vladimir.oltean@....com" <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
	"przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	"ahmed.zaki@...el.com" <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>,
	"richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	"shayagr@...zon.com" <shayagr@...zon.com>,
	"paul.greenwalt@...el.com" <paul.greenwalt@...el.com>,
	"jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	mlxsw <mlxsw@...dia.com>, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 9/9] ethtool: Add ability to flash
 transceiver modules' firmware

> Thanks again for your feedback.
> I thought again about you comment, and this patchset adds support for flashing CMIS compliant modules only.
> Later on, if it will be expanded to more modules, it will be more reasonable to add support like you have suggested to fit the new supported standard.
> So, currently I think it is better to not add it to this specific patchset.

O.K. It should not be a big change, and i doubt it has any major
performance impacts. I2C is not very fast, so we can probably get it
off the disk faster than it can be written to the device.

    Andrew