netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 02/12] netlink: spec: add shaper YAML spec

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: <db504183-1019-4fbb-bee9-7fc19f8bbe7d@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 09:41:44 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@...el.com>,
 Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
 Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 02/12] netlink: spec: add shaper YAML spec

On 8/27/24 03:50, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 10:35:05 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>>> +        name: node
>>>> +        doc: |
>>>> +             The shaper allows grouping of queues or others
>>>> +             node shapers, is not attached to any user-visible
>>>
>>> Saying it's not attached is confusing. Makes it sound like it exists
>>> outside of the scope of a struct net_device.
>>
>> What about:
>>
>>     Can be placed in any arbitrary location of
>>     the scheduling tree, except leaves and root.
> 
> Oh, I was thinking along the same lines above.
> Whether "except leaves or root" or "inner node" is clearer is up to you.

I agree "inner node" should be clear.

>>>> +      -
>>>> +        name: weight
>>>> +        type: u32
>>>> +        doc: |
>>>> +          Weighted round robin weight for given shaper.
>>>
>>> Relative weight of the input into a round robin node.
>>
>> I would avoid mentioning 'input' unless we rolls back to the previous
>> naming scheme.
> 
> Okay, how about:
> 
> 	Relative weight used by a parent round robin node.

Fine by me.

>>>> +           Differently from @leaves and @shaper allow specifying
>>>> +           the shaper parent handle, too.
>>>
>>> Maybe this attr is better called "node", after all.
>>
>> Fine by me, but would that cause some confusion with the alias scope
>> value?
> 
> But to be clear, the "root" describes the node we're creating, right?

Yes. I guess the possible confusion I mentioned will not be so 
confusing, after all. I'll go with this option.

Thanks,

Paolo