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]

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:21:07 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
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

Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:49:25AM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
>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?

True. I think it would be good to establish guidelines for api
extensions in this area.

>
>-- 
>MST
>