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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <d2fc9e7b-e580-4989-880f-9b47fb5b5b4e@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 14:23:00 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, "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 13:28, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 12:58:38PM +0100, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> Why? Why other devlink objects shouldn't be the same as well. Then we
> can have one union. Does not make sense to me. The only think dev and
> port is sharing would be params. What else? Totally different beast.

Instead of focusing on differences try to find similarities.

health reporters per port and "toplevel",
just by grepping:
devlink_nl_sb_pool_fill()
devlink_nl_sb_port_pool_fill(),

devlink_region_create()
devlink_port_region_create()

and there is no reason to assume that someone will not want to
extend ports to have devlink resources or other thing