Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:33:04 -0800 | From | Jakub Kicinski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver |
| |
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:52:24 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > The question at LPC was about making devlink params completely > > transparent to the kernel. Basically added directly from FW. > > That what I was not happy about. > > It is creating a back-porting nightmare for all the enterprise > distributions.
We don't care about enterprise distros, Jason, or stable kernel APIs.
> > You can add as many params at the driver level as you want. > > In fact I asked Saeed repeatedly to start posting all those > > params instead of complaining. > > That really isn't what you said in the video. > > Regardless, configurables are only one part of what mlx5ctl addresses, > we still have all the debugability problems, which are arguably more > important.
Read-only debug interfaces are "do whatever you want" in netdev. Params controlling them (ie. writing stuff) need to be reviewed but are also allowed.
Doesn't mlx5 have a pile of stuff in debugfs already?
Nobody bothered to answer my "are you not going support mstreg over this" question (arbitrary register writes).
> > Let the users complain about the user problems. Also something > > I repeatedly told Saeed. His response was something along the lines > > of users are secret, they can't post on the list, blah, blah. > > You mean like the S390 team at IBM did in the video? > > This is not a reasonable position. One of the jobs of the vendors is > to aggregate the user requests. Even the giant hyperscale customers > that do have the capacity to come on this list prefer to delegate > these things to us. > > If you want to get a direct user forum the kernel mailing list is not > an appropriate place to do it.
Agree to disagree.
> > You know one user who is participating in this thread? > > *ME* > > While the lot of you work for vendors. > > I'm sick of this vendor bashing. You work for *one* user. You know who > talks to *every* user out there? *ME*. > > User and vendors need debugging of this complex HW. I don't need to > bring a parade of a dozen users to this thread to re-enforce that > obvious truth. Indeed when debugging is required the vendor usually > has to do it, so we are the user in this discussion. > > You didn't answer the question, what is your alternative debug-ability > vision here?
Covered above. And it's been discussed multiple times.
Honestly I don't want to spend any more time discussing this. Once you're ready to work together in good faith let me know.
On future revisions of this series please carry:
Nacked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
| |