From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Kicinski Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/10] devlink: Add permanent config parameter get/set operations Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:04:18 -0700 Message-ID: <20171031010418.78fd4db1@laptop> References: <1509374776-45869-1-git-send-email-steven.lin1@broadcom.com> <1509374776-45869-2-git-send-email-steven.lin1@broadcom.com> <20171030170301.GE4115@nanopsycho.orion> <20171030151213.431dfbff@cakuba.netronome.com> <20171031071730.GB1972@nanopsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steve Lin , netdev@vger.kernel.org, jiri@mellanox.com, davem@davemloft.net, michael.chan@broadcom.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, gospo@broadcom.com, yuvalm@mellanox.com To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mx3.wp.pl ([212.77.101.9]:45834 "EHLO mx3.wp.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750872AbdJaIE1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 04:04:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20171031071730.GB1972@nanopsycho.orion> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:17:30 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:12:13PM CET, kubakici@wp.pl wrote: > >On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:03:01 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >I'm not sure what the status of the reconfig trigger patches for mlxsw > >is, but we actually may need 3 config sets: > > - current/runtime configurable, > > - requiring soft reset of the device/driver reinit; > > - requiring hard reset/set on boot. > > > >Secondly, IMHO calling set/get parameters "permanent" is a bit > >backwards. One device may not be able to change max VF counts or MSIX > >allocation without full reinit of PCIe blocks, but for others soft > >reset is more than enough. Port splitting is another example. For > >NICs port splitting at runtime is usually not a priority in HW/FW > >development, so some form of reset is generally required, while > >switches can split a port at runtime. IOW we should define parameters > >without assigning them to config sets in the ABI itself. And also we > >should make it in a way which will allow existing parameters to be > >reused in permanent/sort reset required/runtime modes. > > > >Does that make sense? > > "IOW we should define parameters without assigning them to config sets > in the ABI itself" - I don't understand what do you mean by this. OK, whether the setting is permanent or not - is device specific. I'm basically asking to remove the "PERM" from the names and indicate which config set (of the 3 enumerated above) user wants it applied in a separate attribute.