From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<edumazet@google.com>, <pabeni@redhat.com>, <jiri@resnulli.us>,
<leon@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 03/15] devlink: split out netlink code
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 11:35:57 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <efdf69f7-7010-55c2-b4e2-8a647974bfbf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221215111411.5b6d3f5e@kernel.org>
On 12/15/2022 11:14 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 10:45:48 -0800 Jacob Keller wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 6:01 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> Move out the netlink glue into a separate file.
>>> Leave the ops in the old file because we'd have to export a ton
>>> of functions. Going forward we should switch to split ops which
>>> will let us to put the new ops in the netlink.c file.
>>>
>> Moving to split ops will also be a requirement for per-op policy right?
>
> We can mix within one family, tho, IIRC.
> So new ops can have their own families and the old ones can stick to
> the family policy (unless someone takes the risk of converting them).
I would like to convert them at some point, even if we leave the old
commands as non-strict. Either way I think it would be preferable to
begin enforcing that new ops must be strict and must be per-op policy.
I personally think that moving from non-strict to strict should be ok
especially if we plan it over a few releases. A sane user space
application would generally prefer to be told "this is unacceptable"
rather than have the wrong operation done, or have its attributes
silently ignored... but I can understand the argument against breaking
user space that used to work.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-15 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-15 2:01 [RFC net-next 00/15] devlink: code split and structured instance walk Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 01/15] devlink: move code to a dedicated directory Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 9:51 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-12-15 18:44 ` Jacob Keller
2022-12-15 19:13 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 19:09 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 19:29 ` Jacob Keller
2022-12-15 19:48 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-16 9:09 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-12-16 9:10 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-12-16 18:32 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-16 23:26 ` Jacob Keller
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 02/15] devlink: split out core code Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 03/15] devlink: split out netlink code Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 18:45 ` Jacob Keller
2022-12-15 19:14 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 19:35 ` Jacob Keller [this message]
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 04/15] devlink: protect devlink dump by the instance lock Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 8:42 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-12-15 19:17 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 05/15] netlink: add macro for checking dump ctx size Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 06/15] devlink: use an explicit structure for dump context Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 9:52 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-12-15 18:50 ` Jacob Keller
2022-12-15 19:18 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 07/15] devlink: remove start variables from dumps Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 08/15] devlink: drop the filter argument from devlinks_xa_find_get Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 18:52 ` Jacob Keller
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 09/15] devlink: health: combine loops in dump Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 10/15] devlink: restart dump based on devlink instance ids (simple) Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 18:59 ` Jacob Keller
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 11/15] devlink: restart dump based on devlink instance ids (nested) Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 12/15] devlink: restart dump based on devlink instance ids (function) Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 13/15] devlink: uniformly take the devlink instance lock in the dump loop Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 14/15] devlink: add by-instance dump infra Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 9:11 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-12-15 19:24 ` Jacob Keller
2022-12-15 19:47 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-16 9:23 ` Jiri Pirko
2022-12-15 19:03 ` Jacob Keller
2022-12-15 2:01 ` [RFC net-next 15/15] devlink: convert remaining dumps to the by-instance scheme Jakub Kicinski
2022-12-15 19:39 ` [RFC net-next 00/15] devlink: code split and structured instance walk Jacob Keller
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=efdf69f7-7010-55c2-b4e2-8a647974bfbf@intel.com \
--to=jacob.e.keller@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.