Re: [PATCH net-next v5 05/22] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

Jiri Pirko
2019-03-28T17:28:37Z

Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 06:00:20PM CET, f.fainelli@gmail.com wrote:
>On 3/28/19 6:23 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:37:46AM CET, mkubecek@suse.cz wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 09:10:10AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>> Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 03:05:14AM CET, f.fainelli@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/27/2019 2:50 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you have ETHTOOL_MSG_SET_FOO for set? I think that for
>>>>>> kerne->userspace the ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO if fine. I would change the
>>>>>> ordering of words thought, but it is cosmetics:
>>>>>> ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO /* kernel->userspace messages - replies, notifications */
>>>>>> ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO_GET
>>>>>> ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO_SET
>>>>>> ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO_ACT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> We could even name the notification explicitly with: ETHTOOL_MSG_NOTIF
>>>>> or ETHTOOL_MSG_NTF just so we spell out exactly what those messages are.
>>>>
>>>> Sound good. Something like:
>>>>
>>>> ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO_GET
>>>> ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO_GET_RPLY /* kernel->userspace replies to get */
>>>> ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO_SET
>>>> ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO_ACT
>>>> ETHTOOL_MSG_FOO_NTF /* kernel->userspace async messages - notifications */
>>>
>>> The names sound fine to me and having different message ids would still
>>> allow processing messages by the same handler easily.
>>>
>>> But there is one potential issue I would like to point out: this way we
>>> spend 4 message ids for a get/set pair rather than 2. These message ids
>>> (genlmsghdr::cmd) are u8, i.e. the resource is not as infinite as one
>>> would wish. There are 80 ioctl commands (43 "get" and 29 "set") at the
>>> moment.
>>>
>>> Netlink API should be less greedy in general. I already combined some
>>> ioctl commands into one netlink request type and with an easy way to add
>>> new attributes to existing commands, we won't need to add new commands
>>> as often (certainly not in a way which left us with 9 "get" and 9 "set"
>>> ioctl commands for netdev features). So even with 4 ids per get/set
>>> pair, we might be safe for reasonably long time. But it's still
>>> something to keep in mind.
>>
>> There are still 16 bits reserve in genl msg header:
>> struct genlmsghdr {
>> __u8 cmd;
>> __u8 version;
>> __u16 reserved;
>> };
>>
>
>And you know not all message IDs will be making sense depending on the
>direction, so aliasing specific message IDs to an existing value should
>be fine?

You are right, good idea. There can be 2 enums one for in, one for out.