netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] ethtool: add FEC bins histogramm report

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: <20250730064519.38abc0c3@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 06:45:19 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Michael
 Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>, Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>,
 Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
 intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ethtool: add FEC bins histogramm report

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 10:22:36 +0100 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> >> +    name: fec-hist
> >> +    subset-of: fec-stat  
> > 
> > no need to make this a subset, better to make it its own attr set  
> 
> like a set for general histogram? or still fec-specific?

You can make it a general histogram, I guess 🤔️
No strong preference.

> >> +    attributes:
> >> +      -
> >> +        name: fec-hist-bin-low
> >> +      -
> >> +        name: fec-hist-bin-high
> >> +      -
> >> +        name: fec-hist-bin-val
> >>     -
> >>       name: fec
> >>       attr-cnt-name: __ethtool-a-fec-cnt  
> >   
> >> +static const struct ethtool_fec_hist_range netdevsim_fec_ranges[] = {
> >> +	{  0,  0},
> >> +	{  1,  3},
> >> +	{  4,  7},
> >> +	{ -1, -1}
> >> +};  
> > 
> > Let's add a define for the terminating element?  
> 
> I believe it's about (-1, -1) case. If we end up using (0, 0) then there
> is no need to define anything, right?

Yup, 0,0 is better written as {} so no need for a define.