RE: [RFC net-next 1/2] if_link : add support for VF privileges

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@solarflare.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:43 PM
To: David Miller
Cc: Khaparde, Ajit; shemminger@linux-foundation.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/2] if_link : add support for VF privileges

On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 17:04 -0500, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: <redacted>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:02:27 -0800

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@solarflare.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:25 PM
To: Khaparde, Ajit
Cc: davem@davemloft.net; shemminger@linux-foundation.org;
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/2] if_link : add support for VF privileges

On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 13:26 -0600, Ajit Khaparde wrote:

quoted

+enum {
+	IFLA_VF_PRIVILEGE_DEFAULT = 1,	/* Default privileges */

What are the default privileges?  Should existing drivers report that
their VFs have this?

Yes. Vendors can decide what privileges they want to grant for VFs by default.

That's terrible and a very bad interface for users.  It means every system
can have different defaults, from which we'll derive zero consistency.

Aside from this, my concern is that if we assign privilege flags to
capabilities that VFs normally have now then the value reported where
the driver doesn't support this new operation should not be 0.

 
Agree.

(Also, if a privilege is assigned by default, is it really a privilege?
Wouldn't 'capability' or 'permission' be a better term?)

Sure. Anything is fine.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.