netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 07/14] devlink: Implement port params registration

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56581582-770d-4a3e-84cb-ad85bc23c1e7@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 12:58:38 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
CC: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman
	<gal@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 07/14] devlink: Implement port params
 registration

On 2/28/25 03:12, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
> 
> Port params infrastructure is incomplete and needs a bit of plumbing to
> support port params commands from netlink.
> 
> Introduce port params registration API, very similar to current devlink
> params API, add the params xarray to devlink_port structure and
> decouple devlink params registration routines from the devlink
> structure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
> ---
>   include/net/devlink.h |  14 ++++
>   net/devlink/param.c   | 150 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>   net/devlink/port.c    |   3 +
>   3 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
For me devlink and devlink-port should be really the same, to the point
that the only difference is `bool is_port` flag inside of the
struct devlink. Then you could put special logic if really desired (to
exclude something for port).
Then for ease of driver programming you could have also a flag
"for_port" in the struct devlink_param, so developers will fill that
out statically and call it on all their devlinks (incl port).

Multiplying the APIs instead of rethinking a problem is not a good long
term solution.