From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V1 0/3] net/mlx4_core: Allow setting init-time device specific parameters Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20150312.140505.1685428263314887570.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1426064933-29072-1-git-send-email-amirv@mellanox.com> <20150311.131457.1314699780103858026.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, amirv@mellanox.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, hadarh@mellanox.com, yevgenyp@mellanox.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, talal@mellanox.com, 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: hadarh@dev.mellanox.co.il Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:37973 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755102AbbCLSFL (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:05:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Hadar Hen Zion Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:07:35 +0200 > 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? > > Is a scheme based on netlink will be acceptable by you? A portable, well typed, interface that other vendors could use if their hardware had similar features would be acceptable.