On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:02 PM Jakub Kicinski
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:57:21 +0530, Vasundhara Volam wrote:

quoted

This patchset adds support for configuration parameters setting through
devlink_port.  Each device registers supported configuration parameters
table.

Since you're not planning to address my comments, could you please quote
what I said explicite to the cover letter (quoting the last message):


As explained previously I think it's a very bad idea to add existing
configuration options to devlink, just because devlink has the ability
to persist the setting in NVM.  Especially that for WoL you have to get
the link up so you potentially have all link config stuff as well.  And
that n-tuple filters are one of the WoL options, meaning we'd need the
ability to persist n-tuple filters via devlink.

The effort would be far better spent helping with migrating ethtool to
netlink, and allowing persisting there.

I have not heard any reason why devlink is a better fit.  I can imagine
you're just doing it here because it's less effort for you since
ethtool is not yet migrated.


And include something resembling a reason why you're deciding to
ignore it?

I believe I have replied to all your emails on this topic.  We just
have a difference in opinion.

Anyway, I have asked Vasundhara to quote your comments and to quote
mine in the cover letter.

Thanks.