netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: support set mac address from vdpa tool

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: <20240613024756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 02:49:25 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>,
	dtatulea@...dia.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: support set mac address from vdpa tool

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:22:32AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:15:44AM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 08:29:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 03:58:10AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:32:32 +0800 Cindy Lu wrote:
> >> >> Add new UAPI to support the mac address from vdpa tool
> >> >> Function vdpa_nl_cmd_dev_config_set_doit() will get the
> >> >> MAC address from the vdpa tool and then set it to the device.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The usage is: vdpa dev set name vdpa_name mac **:**:**:**:**:**
> >> >
> >> >Why don't you use devlink?
> >> 
> >> Fair question. Why does vdpa-specific uapi even exist? To have
> >> driver-specific uapi Does not make any sense to me :/
> >
> >I am not sure which uapi do you refer to? The one this patch proposes or
> >the existing one?
> 
> Sure, I'm sure pointing out, that devlink should have been the answer
> instead of vdpa netlink introduction. That ship is sailed,

> now we have
> unfortunate api duplication which leads to questions like Jakub's one.
> That's all :/



Yea there's no point to argue now, there were arguments this and that
way.  I don't think we currently have a lot
of duplication, do we?

-- 
MST