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: <aw3z3xgjlp3thulc5i3qcfqsr7lamm2u67yqdq6myomlvtkd5x@6vecjicqvib4>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 16:21:13 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
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

Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 02:23:00PM +0100, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com wrote:
>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(),

Sharedbuffer is separate story.

>
>devlink_region_create()
>devlink_port_region_create()

Okay, regions I missed.

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

But looks at differences. They are huge.

But perhaps I'm missing the point. What you want to achieve? Just to
reduce API? That is always a tradeoff. I don't think the pros top the
cons here.