From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v3 00/21] ethtool netlink interface, part 1
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:57:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190219115727.GE23151@unicorn.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190219103508.GD3080@nanopsycho>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:35:08AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >- some features provided by ethtool would rather belong to devlink (and
> > some are already superseded by devlink); however, only few drivers
> > provide devlink interface at the moment and as recent discussion on
> > flashing revealed, we cannot rely on devlink's presence
>
> Could you explain why please?
What I mean is the problem discussed under Jakub's devlink flash
patchset: that he couldn't implement only the devlink callback in nfp
and rely on the generic fallback to devlink because it wouldn't work if
devlink is built as a module.
But I think this should be addressed. If we agree that flashing (and
other features provided by ethtool at the moment) rather belongs to
devlink (which nobody seems to oppose), we should rather try to make it
possible for drivers to provide only the devlink callback and gradually
move all in-tree drivers to doing so. (And one day, remove it from
ethtool_ops.) It doesn't seem to make much sense to have devlink as
a module in such scenario.
Michal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-19 11:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-18 18:21 Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:21 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 01/21] netlink: introduce nla_put_bitfield32() Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:21 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 02/21] ethtool: move to its own directory Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 20:01 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-02-18 18:21 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 03/21] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:21 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 04/21] ethtool: helper functions for " Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 20:15 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-02-19 13:07 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:21 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 05/21] ethtool: netlink bitset handling Michal Kubecek
2019-02-20 2:27 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-02-20 8:16 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:21 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 06/21] ethtool: support for netlink notifications Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:21 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 07/21] ethtool: implement EVENT notifications Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 23:46 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-02-19 7:02 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 08/21] ethtool: generic handlers for GET requests Michal Kubecek
2019-02-20 2:42 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 09/21] ethtool: move string arrays into common file Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 10/21] ethtool: provide string sets with GET_STRSET request Michal Kubecek
2019-02-20 2:56 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-02-20 12:34 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 11/21] ethtool: provide driver/device information in GET_INFO request Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 12/21] ethtool: provide permanent hardware address " Michal Kubecek
2019-02-19 10:24 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-02-19 11:36 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 13/21] ethtool: provide timestamping information " Michal Kubecek
2019-02-20 3:00 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-02-20 13:00 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-02-20 18:37 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 14/21] ethtool: provide link mode names as a string set Michal Kubecek
2019-02-21 3:21 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-02-21 9:57 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 15/21] ethtool: provide link settings and link modes in GET_SETTINGS request Michal Kubecek
2019-02-21 3:14 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-02-21 10:14 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-02-21 17:40 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 16/21] ethtool: provide WoL information " Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 17/21] ethtool: provide message level " Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:22 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 18/21] ethtool: provide link state " Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 19/21] ethtool: provide device features " Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 20/21] ethtool: provide private flags " Michal Kubecek
2019-02-18 18:23 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 21/21] ethtool: send netlink notifications about setting changes Michal Kubecek
2019-02-19 10:35 ` [RFC PATCH net-next v3 00/21] ethtool netlink interface, part 1 Jiri Pirko
2019-02-19 11:57 ` Michal Kubecek [this message]
2019-02-19 12:27 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-02-21 3:21 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-02-21 9:54 ` Michal Kubecek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190219115727.GE23151@unicorn.suse.cz \
--to=mkubecek@suse.cz \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®