netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v9 2/8] net: phy: Support speed selection for PHY loopback

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53b21122-f077-46f6-8059-d1d87f66a3e7@engleder-embedded.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 06:58:20 +0100
From: Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@...leder-embedded.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: hkallweit1@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ltrager@...a.com,
 linux@...linux.org.uk, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Jijie Shao <shaojijie@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 2/8] net: phy: Support speed selection for PHY
 loopback

On 04.03.25 21:00, Gerhard Engleder wrote:
> On 04.03.25 17:15, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:20:02 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> The current IOCTL interface is definitely too limiting for what Lee
>>> will need. So there is a netlink API coming soon. Should Gerhard and
>>> Jijie try to shoehorn what they want into the current IOCTL handler,
>>> or help design the netlink API? How can selftest.c be taken apart and
>>> put back together to make it more useful? And should the high level
>>> API for PRBS be exported through it, making it easier to use for any
>>> netdev?
>>
>> As we think about this let's keep in mind that selftests are generic,
>> not PHY-centric. Even if we can pass all link settings in there are
>> other innumerable params people may want in the future.
> 
> My patchset can be divided into two parts:
> 1) Extend phy_loopback() to select a defined speed
> 2) Extend tsnep selftests to get some in-kernel test coverage for the
>     phy_loopback() extension
> 
> This discussion is related to the selftest rework of the second part.
> Would it be ok to put the first part into a separate patchset, as this
> changes make sense and work even without the selftests?

Andrew, is it ok to put phy_loopback() extension to a separate patch
set?

Gerhard