netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface

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: <d8433563-f867-428a-bd8a-9bfffe744da4@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:00:35 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, pabeni@...hat.com,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
 Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta
 Platforms Host Network Interface



On 4/10/2024 10:56 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:39:11 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> Hm, we currently group by vendor but the fact it's a private device
>>> is probably more important indeed. For example if Google submits
>>> a driver for a private device it may be confusing what's public
>>> cloud (which I think/hope GVE is) and what's fully private.
>>>
>>> So we could categorize by the characteristic rather than vendor:
>>>
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/${term}/fbnic/
>>>
>>> I'm afraid it may be hard for us to agree on an accurate term, tho.
>>> "Unused" sounds.. odd, we don't keep unused code, "private"
>>> sounds like we granted someone special right not took some away,
>>> maybe "exclusive"? Or "besteffort"? Or "staging" :D  IDK.
>>
>> Do we really need that categorization at the directory/filesystem level?
>> cannot we just document it clearly in the Kconfig help text and under
>> Documentation/networking/?
> 
>  From the reviewer perspective I think we will just remember.
> If some newcomer tries to do refactoring they may benefit from seeing
> this is a special device and more help is offered. Dunno if a newcomer
> would look at the right docs.
> 
> Whether it's more "paperwork" than we'll actually gain, I have no idea.
> I may not be the best person to comment.

To me it is starting to feel like more paperwork than warranted, 
although I cannot really think about an "implied" metric that we could 
track, short of monitoring patches/bug reports coming from outside of 
the original driver authors/owners as an indication of how widely 
utilized a given driver is.

The number of changes to the driver between release cycles is not a good 
indication between a driver with few users presents the most agile 
configuration, but similarly, a very actively used driver with real 
world users may see a large number of changes between releases based 
upon its use.

What we need is some sort of popularity contest tracking :)
-- 
Florian