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: <885f0615-81e8-4f1f-9e97-b82f4d9509d3@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:30:08 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Willem de Bruijn
	<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
CC: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, John Fastabend
	<john.fastabend@...il.com>, Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.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>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta
 Platforms Host Network Interface



On 4/10/2024 12:26 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 11:06:05PM CEST, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com wrote:
>> Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 13:08:24 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>
>> 2. whether new device features can be supported without at least
>>   two available devices supporting it.
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>>
>> 2 is out of scope for this series. But I would always want to hear
>> about potential new features that an organization finds valuable
>> enough to implement. Rather than a blanket rule against them.
> 
> This appears out of the nowhere. In the past, I would say wast majority
> of the features was merged with single device implementation. Often, it
> is the only device out there at a time that supports the feature.
> This limitation would put break for feature additions. I can put a long
> list of features that would not be here ever (like 50% of mlxsw driver).
> 
>>
>>
> 

Jakub already mentioned this being nuanced in a previous part of the
thread. In reality, lots of features do get implemented by only one
driver first.

I think its good practice to ensure multiple vendors/drivers can use
whatever common uAPI or kernel API exists. It can be frustrating when
some new API gets introduced but then can't be used by another device..
In most cases thats on the vendors for being slow to respond or work
with each other when developing the new API.