From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Subject: Re: HW communication debugging interface - ideas? Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:32:33 -0300 Message-ID: <20151005183233.GD4890@localhost.localdomain> References: <20150930135141.GF2098@nanopsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, eladr@mellanox.com, idosch@mellanox.com To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38711 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751052AbbJESch (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:32:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150930135141.GF2098@nanopsycho.orion> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:51:41PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Hi Dave/all. > > There is quite common for drivers to speak with HW using "packet-like" > messages. In our case, we put message into skb and push that out as > an ordinary packet. HW then sends us reply in a packet, similar to other > rx-ed packets. Better sure than sorry so I'll ask. It's not possible for an application to inject such skbs somehow, right? Like, a guest, tied to a bridge, tied to a port which ends up understanding these skbs. ... > 2) generic Netlink (genl) interface. Easy to put metadata in, including the > device identificator (pci address). User then can use nlmon in order to > be able to use wireshark to see the netlink messages. > > Looks like 2) might be viable, well-defined, generic interface to carry > this info. What do you think? Does this make sense? 2 seems very interesting, fwiw Marcelo