Re: [PATCH net-next 7/9] devlink: allow registering parameters after the instance

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 09:35:57AM CET, leon@kernel.org wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 08:50:33AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 08:58:58PM CET, leon@kernel.org wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 03:59:53PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 08:07:43AM CET, leon@kernel.org wrote:
>> >> >On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 01:29:03PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> On 1/11/2023 8:45 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> >> >> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 10:32:13 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> I'm confused. You want to register objects after instance register?  
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> +1, I think it's an anti-pattern.  
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Could you elaborate a bit please?
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Mixing registering sub-objects before and after the instance is a bit
>> >> >> > of an anti-pattern. Easy to introduce bugs during reload and reset /
>> >> >> > error recovery. I thought that's what you were saying as well.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I was thinking of a case where an object is dynamic and might get added
>> >> >> based on events occurring after the devlink was registered.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> But the more I think about it the less that makes sense. What events
>> >> >> would cause a whole subobject to be registerd which we wouldn't already
>> >> >> know about during initialization of devlink?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> We do need some dynamic support because situations like "add port" will
>> >> >> add a port and then the ports subresources after the main devlink, but I
>> >> >> think that is already supported well and we'd add the port sub-resources
>> >> >> at the same time as the port.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> But thinking more on this, there isn't really another good example since
>> >> >> we'd register things like health reporters, regions, resources, etc all
>> >> >> during initialization. Each of these sub objects may have dynamic
>> >> >> portions (ex: region captures, health events, etc) but the need for the
>> >> >> object should be known about during init time if its supported by the
>> >> >> device driver.
>> >> >
>> >> >As a user, I don't want to see any late dynamic object addition which is
>> >> >not triggered by me explicitly. As it doesn't make any sense to add
>> >> >various delays per-vendor/kernel in configuration scripts just because
>> >> >not everything is ready. Users need predictability, lazy addition of
>> >> >objects adds chaos instead.
>> >> >
>> >> >Agree with Jakub, it is anti-pattern.
>> >> 
>> >> Yeah, but, we have reload. And during reload, instance is still
>> >> registered yet the subobject disappear and reappear. So that would be
>> >> inconsistent with the init/fini flow.
>> >> 
>> >> Perhaps during reload we should emulate complete fini/init notification
>> >> flow to the user?
>> >
>> >"reload" is triggered by me explicitly and I will get success/fail result
>> >at the end. There is no much meaning in subobject notifications during
>> >that operation.
>> 
>> Definitelly not. User would trigger reload, however another entity
>> (systemd for example) would listen to the notifications and react
>> if necessary.
>
>Listen yes, however it is not clear if notification sequence should
>mimic fini/init flow.

Well, it makes sense to me. Why do you think it should not?

>
>Thanks
>
>> 
>> >
>> >Thanks