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 A598082D97 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708541106; cv=none; b=m5XkMBlwmHQdffwfpdrl30H2CajaCyfwfkG9eIParXGM9Cc25o8x6/74tI3RJT8+BkD37rB9l/Z8Jq9923gJQ0DAl7RtaZmdcQc0QM/R0gem/Nzb2WZ9CCxLb+Y+pyXIooK7U44CJrBcOH/JWopKlaPhsqV1dL0npQKiD/L6wYU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708541106; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fnyhnQ6/5aUd3bsKNeZLVmArtImRok1AlLWxA7S3IT4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=b8Hmb0pExeprtCK9/pDbgRAwfZr4n401ahuib1IAYfp+5FPFdThR6d19goTy29FiEJVMskpFwLprLGp7x08NalBBD27zmqtFQEp8RLgmu4sbcH01NViazYTa7K0A5Ec4Pe++DqWevvAXD6mOm8+6BITo27IrjYGrhOhwRLbURrY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=qgVy4ts7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="qgVy4ts7" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 179FAC433F1; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:45:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1708541106; bh=fnyhnQ6/5aUd3bsKNeZLVmArtImRok1AlLWxA7S3IT4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=qgVy4ts70GAFTpSHZq3RCVs8Eo6AENNorDlL9Werumc9b1qEhyKShEcBu4csoOivk s7pTF+A/Zmz9iRc8jNSRL7tZ+xC+AGvKHm6gGwNMETrT9nxCt0uUGPdslEN6A2HnEz VP2cMH2WEeHzzshLDuaNqGaFBLVnn6BEkxUWGIWlQJtC4C1QDSP3iNHZlPpnmtakGJ +RcsKc+2Y4+jsD13xf3COp50T3z0xhsNSsIyIfbwJJljlWT3jBnfN/Di6xoxK/5MKK Xg8S5bu9lx08Xk5S20yJ1c9u1M8LF3lh7fDyPBrIkXwQY/GAFDoKloLfxSfBupS8ia eADRUkLWRJM8w== Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:45:05 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jiri Pirko Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, jacob.e.keller@intel.com, swarupkotikalapudi@gmail.com, donald.hunter@gmail.com, sdf@google.com, lorenzo@kernel.org, alessandromarcolini99@gmail.com Subject: Re: [patch net-next 06/13] tools: ynl: introduce attribute-replace for sub-message Message-ID: <20240221104505.23938b01@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20240219172525.71406-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20240219172525.71406-7-jiri@resnulli.us> <20240219145204.48298295@kernel.org> <20240220181004.639af931@kernel.org> 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 Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:48:13 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >But TC and ip-link are raw netlink, meaning genetlink-legacy remains > >fairly straightforward. BTW since we currently have full parity in C > >code gen adding this series will break build for tools/net/ynl. > > > >Plus ip-link is a really high value target. I had been pondering how > >to solve it myself. There's probably a hundred different implementations > >out there of container management systems which spawn veths using odd > >hacks because "netlink is scary". Once I find the time to finish > >rtnetlink codegen we can replace all the unholy libbpf netlink hacks > >with ynl, too. > > > >So at this stage I'd really like to focus YNL on language coverage > >(adding more codegens), packaging and usability polish, not extending > >the spec definitions to cover not-so-often used corner cases. > >Especially those which will barely benefit because they are in > >themselves built to be an abstraction. > > That leaves devlink.yaml incomplete, which I'm not happy about. It is a > legacy, it should be covered by genetlink-legacy I believe. > > To undestand you correctly, should I wait until codegen for raw netlink > is done and then to rebase-repost this? Or do you say this will never be > acceptable? It'd definitely not acceptable before the rtnetlink C codegen is complete, and at least two other code gens for genetlink-legacy. At that point we can reconsider complicating the schema further.