netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4] 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: <34da824b-1922-418f-953f-99287443b088@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 17:08:34 +0100
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: 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>, Carolina Jubran
 <cjubran@...dia.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4] ethtool: add FEC bins histogramm report

On 11/08/2025 16:41, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 11:52:55 +0100 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>>> TBH I'm a bit unsure if this is really worth breaking out into
>>> individual nla_puts(). We generally recommend that, but here it's
>>> an array of simple ints.. maybe we're better of with a binary / C
>>> array of u64. Like the existing FEC stats but without also folding
>>> the total value into index 0.
>>
>> Well, the current implementation is straight forward. Do you propose to
>> have drivers fill in the amount of lanes they have histogram for, or
>> should we always put array of ETHTOOL_MAX_LANES values and let
>> user-space to figure out what to show?
> 
> Similar logic to what you have, you can move the put outside of the
> loop, let the loop break or exit, and then @j will tell you how many
> entries to fill..

I see. Fair, I can do it. After this change there will be no need to
change the code in the reply size calculation, right?