Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] virtio-net: initial debugfs support, export mergeable rx buffer size

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:45:42PM -0800, Michael Dalton wrote:
> I'd like to confirm the preferred sysfs path structure for mergeable
> receive buffers. Is 'mergeable_rx_buffer_size' the right attribute name
> to use or is there a strong preference for a different name?
> 
> I believe the current approach proposed for the next patchset is to use a
> per-netdev attribute group which we will add to the receive
> queue kobj (struct netdev_rx_queue). That leaves us with at
> least two options:
>   (1) Name the attribute group something, e.g., 'virtio-net', in which
>       case all virtio-net attributes for eth0 queue N will be of
>       the form:
>       /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-N/virtio-net/<attribute name>
> 
>   (2) Do not name the attribute group (leave the name NULL), in which
>       case AFAICT virtio-net and device-independent attributes would be
>       mixed without any indication. For example, all virtio-net
>       attributes for netdev eth0 queue N would be of the form:
>       /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-N/<attribute name>
> 
> FWIW, the bonding netdev has a similar sysfs issue and uses a per-netdev
> attribute group (stored in the 'sysfs_groups' field of struct netdevice)
> In the case of bonding, the attribute group is named, so
> device-independent netdev attributes are found in
> /sys/class/net/eth0/<attribute name> while bonding attributes are placed
> in /sys/class/net/eth0/bonding/<attribute name>.
> 
> So it seems like there is some precedent for using an attribute group
> name corresponding to the driver name. Does using an attribute group
> name of 'virtio-net' sound good or would an empty or different attribute
> group name be preferred?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mike

I'm guessing we should follow the bonding example.
What do others think?