lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH V3 2/5] misc: mlx5ctl: Add mlx5ctl misc driver
    On 28 Nov 08:44, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
    >On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:24:13 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
    >> You said you already rejected it at the very start of this discussion
    >> and linked to the video recording of the rejection discussion:
    >>
    >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231019165055.GT3952@nvidia.com/
    >>
    >> This session was specifically on the 600 FW configuration parameters
    >> that mlx5 has. This is something that is done today on non-secure boot
    >> systems with direct PCI access on sysfs and would be absorbed into
    >> this driver on secure-boot systems. Ie nothing really changes from the
    >> broader ecosystem perspective.
    >
    >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.
    >
    >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.
    >

    We posted many params over the years the you shot down on the spot,
    do you really expect me to implement 600 of those knowing that you will
    nack 80% of them asking to have common knobs for all vendors, and you know
    that is impossible.
    you nack patches then ask for a porpossal, we came up with many proposal
    and discussed them face to face on multiple occasions, LPC/netconf etc,
    then you ask for patches, then you nack again, we are just going in circles
    here..

    >> I second Dave's question - if you do not like mlx5ctl, then what is
    >> your vision to solve all these user problems?
    >
    >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.
    >

    I never said it is a secret, but I can't publicly reveal who my customers
    are and what they want, you know very well who asked for the high
    frequency counter sampling.. So we came up with a very clear solution,
    that has nothing to do with netdev, since for that particular use-case it
    is not netdev specific, and netdev stack isn't even present.

    >You know one user who is participating in this thread?
    >*ME*
    >While the lot of you work for vendors.

    And how *YOU* expect the vendors to debug *YOUR* issues, if you don't
    allow them to access their HW?

    Asking all vendors to use *YOUR* "devlink generic_dev generic_knob" is an
    insult to all vendors, how about you provide the ASIC design and RTLs
    to all vendors and we just manufacture it for you..

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-11-28 20:32    [W:2.575 / U:0.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site