Re: [PATCH net-next 06/10] {NET,IB}/mlx4: Add device managed flow steering firmware API

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 01:34 -0700, David Miller wrote:

From: Or Gerlitz <redacted>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:55:28 +0300

quoted

On 7/2/2012 12:42 AM, David Miller wrote:

quoted

[...] Module parameters stink because every driver is going to provide
the knob differently, with a different name, and different
semantics. This creates a terrible user experience, and I will not
allow it.

OK, so if looking on what we are left with on the table, seems that
sysfs entry on the mlx4_core
level (as we do for the port link type {IB, Eth} or IB port MTU) could
be fine here, Roland, agree?

No way.

You have to create a real interface, that other vendors with similar
chips can consistently use.

But there may not be enough commonality to define a non- vendor-specific
API.  And ethtool really isn't a good way to expose parameters that are
per-controller rather than per-net-device, particularly if changing them
may disrupt all running net devices on that controller and not just the
one used to invoke SIOCETHTOOL.

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.