From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C92B1ED51 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:24:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51ECDC433D2; Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:24:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1686072271; bh=jHiAYO0LMlzHnPL3qmuxjmdrGwM+TYEuiPxNKoRMvxA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=nnWnSspZTxktI6l8pKaUqDWp96yJYYgosdmgr8XR3vVoKCcfhtrqcLmvukbpRb0N9 wKMusD8zXwH2NfJpMotBWfDHbLiBdikgoMFcmzjx32Ic49aGNxchB0Ui7BK0a8lCNw qFct98uIzimMnYYB0wajAgA3BwjxsZmBcxK3byfaFRHWdm4F/Tna/0StISVMva6BwL WYaEEbn9B/KLDRx0DCoGeAg1YY8tfX9ufmZmPpavXLAlyQnl5urzqb4WNKXy2gBL/4 tFIQpC+i47x6nRigrKkve7uHCDqNkj3cTL6i6TM/OehJOwtQLKQ5Og2j72F/Ud7grU qHQqRanYmjAcw== Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:24:30 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Maciej Fijalkowski , Piotr Gardocki Cc: Tony Nguyen , , , , , Michal Swiatkowski , Rafal Romanowski , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] iavf: add check for current MAC address in set_mac callback Message-ID: <20230606102430.294dee2f@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20230602171302.745492-1-anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> <20230602171302.745492-2-anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 12:21:07 +0200 Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > > > couldn't this be checked the layer above then? and pulled out of drivers? > > > > Probably it could, but I can't tell for all drivers if such request should > > always be ignored. I'm not aware of all possible use cases for this callback > > to be called and I can imagine designs where such request should be > > always handled. > > if you can imagine a case where such request should be handled then i'm > all ears. it feels like this is in an optimization where everyone could > benefit from (no expert in this scope though), but yeah this callback went > into the wild and it's implemented all over the place. +1, FWIW, this is a net-next change, let's try to put it in the core unless we see a clear enough reason not to.