From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V1 0/3] net/mlx4_core: Allow setting init-time device specific parameters Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:46:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20150312134651.GB32053@kroah.com> References: <1426064933-29072-1-git-send-email-amirv@mellanox.com> <20150311.131457.1314699780103858026.davem@davemloft.net> <20150312090042.GB1092@kroah.com> <5501803D.8020101@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Hadar Hen Zion , David Miller , Amir Vadai , netdev , Hadar Hen Zion , yevgenyp@mellanox.com, Tal Alon , shannon.nelson@intel.com, dledford@redhat.com, greearb@candelatech.com, gregory.v.rose@intel.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, john.ronciak@intel.com To: Or Gerlitz Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:36458 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754555AbbCLNqz (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:46:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5501803D.8020101@mellanox.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 02:02:05PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On 3/12/2015 11:00 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:07:35AM +0200, Hadar Hen Zion wrote: > >>On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:14 PM, David Miller wrote: > >>>From: Amir Vadai > >>>Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:08:50 +0200 > >>> > >>>>Also, customers are paying for a very sophisticated piece of hardware, and we would like to enable power user to tweak it in some situtations. Of course the default mode should be used in 99% of the use cases. > >>>How much money someone pays for your hardware has nothing to do with the standards by which we design userspace interfaces to configure these devices. > >>> > >>>These textual interfaces are arbitrary, and you are choosing it only because you cannot come up with a more reasonable scheme, > >>> > >>>I'm not applying these changes. > >>>--- > >>In previous conversations Greg suggested us to use configfs. > >> > >>Is this case a misuse of configfs? maybe configfs should be deprecated... Greg? > >No, this has nothing to do with the validity of configfs, please re-read what David said to you. > > Greg, > > So.. M2-- reading Dave's words I understand that he's against textual > interfacessuch as configfs and prefers others. This brings two questions to > the table (1) do we need to deprecate these textual interfaces / configfs > and avoid using them for configuration purposes with new code? No, configfs works quite well for a number of other kernel subsystems, so please leave them alone here. > (2) does > programmable interface such as netlink is the way to go for our purposes > here (and elsewhere)? I don't know, that's up to the network developers, but you had better not abuse the firmware download inteface, that's what I strongly objected to originally. good luck, greg k-h