[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhY_MVfBMMlGAuK5@nanopsycho>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:26:41 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: 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
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).
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists