Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:25:30 -0700 | From | Jakub Kicinski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to devlink reload command |
| |
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:02:58 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 10:39:46PM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote: > >AFAIU the per-driver default is needed because we went too low > >level with what the action constitutes. We need maintain the higher > >level actions. > > > >The user clearly did not care if FW was reset during devlink reload > >before this set, so what has changed? The objective user has is to > > Well for mlxsw, the user is used to this flow: > devlink dev flash - flash new fw > devlink dev reload - new fw is activated and reset and driver instances > are re-created.
Ugh, if the current behavior already implies fw-activation for some drivers then the default has to probably be "do all the things" :S
> >activate their config / FW / move to different net ns. > > > >Reloading the driver or resetting FW is a low level detail which > >achieves different things for different implementations. So it's > >not a suitable abstraction -> IOW we need the driver default. > > I'm confused. So you think we need the driver default?
No, I'm talking about the state of this patch set. _In this patchset_ we need a driver default because of the unsuitable abstraction.
Better design would not require it.
> >The work flow for the user is: > > > >0. download fw to /lib/firmware > >1. devlink flash $dev $fw > >2. if live activation is enabled > > yes - devlink reload $dev $live-activate > > no - report machine has to be drained for reboot > > > >fw-reset can't be $live-activate, because as Jake said fw-reset does > >not activate the new image for Intel. So will we end up per-driver > >defaults in the kernel space, and user space maintaining a mapping from > > Well, that is what what is Moshe's proposal. Per-driver kernel default.. > I'm not sure what we are arguing about then :/
The fact that if I do a pure "driver reload" it will active new firmware for mlxsw but not for mlx5. In this patchset for mlx5 I need driver reload fw-reset. And for Intel there is no suitable option.
> >a driver to what a "level" of reset implies. > > > >I hope this makes things crystal clear. Please explain what problems > >you're seeing and extensions you're expecting. A list of user scenarios > >you foresee would be v. useful.
| |