Hi Jiri,
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 11:38 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 06:41:49PM CEST, vikas.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >Hi Jiri,
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 11:58 AM Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 08:16:11AM CEST, vikas.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> >Hi Jiri,
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 6:10 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 08:29:48PM CEST, vikas.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
> >> >> > * enum devlink_trap_action - Packet trap action.
> >> >> > * @DEVLINK_TRAP_ACTION_DROP: Packet is dropped by the device and a copy
> >> >> is not
> >> >> >@@ -576,6 +598,10 @@ enum devlink_attr {
> >> >> > DEVLINK_ATTR_LINECARD_TYPE, /* string */
> >> >> > DEVLINK_ATTR_LINECARD_SUPPORTED_TYPES, /* nested */
> >> >> >
> >> >> >+ DEVLINK_ATTR_SELFTESTS_MASK, /* u32 */
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't see why this is u32 bitset. Just have one attr per test
> >> >> (NLA_FLAG) in a nested attr instead.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >As per your suggestion, for an example it should be like as below
> >> >
> >> > DEVLINK_ATTR_SELFTESTS, /* nested */
> >> >
> >> > DEVLINK_ATTR_SELFTESTS_SOMETEST1 /* flag */
> >> >
> >> > DEVLINK_ATTR_SELFTESTS_SOMETEST2 /* flag */
> >>
> >> Yeah, but have the flags in separate enum, no need to pullute the
> >> devlink_attr enum by them.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >.... <SOME MORE TESTS>
> >> >
> >> >.....
> >> >
> >> > DEVLINK_ATTR_SLEFTESTS_RESULT_VAL, /* u8 */
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If we have this way then we need to have a mapping (probably a function)
> >> >for drivers to tell them what tests need to be executed based on the flags
> >> >that are set.
> >> > Does this look OK?
> >> > The rationale behind choosing a mask is that we could directly pass the
> >> >mask-value to the drivers.
> >>
> >> If you have separate enum, you can use the attrs as bits internally in
> >> kernel. Add a helper that would help the driver to work with it.
> >> Pass a struct containing u32 (or u8) not to drivers. Once there are more
> >> tests than that, this structure can be easily extended and the helpers
> >> changed. This would make this scalable. No need for UAPI change or even
> >> internel driver api change.
> >
> >As per your suggestion, selftest attributes can be declared in separate
> >enum as below
> >
> >enum {
> >
> > DEVLINK_SELFTEST_SOMETEST, /* flag */
> >
> > DEVLINK_SELFTEST_SOMETEST1,
> >
> > DEVLINK_SELFTEST_SOMETEST2,
> >
> >....
> >
> >......
> >
> > __DEVLINK_SELFTEST_MAX,
> >
> > DEVLINK_SELFTEST_MAX = __DEVLINK_SELFTEST_MAX - 1
> >
> >};
> >Below examples could be the flow of parameters/data from user to
> >kernel and vice-versa
> >
> >
> >Kernel to user for show command . Users can know what all tests are
> >supported by the driver. A return from kernel to user.
> >______
> >|NEST |
> >|_____ |TEST1|TEST4|TEST7|...
> >
> >
> >User to kernel to execute test: If user wants to execute test4, test8, test1...
> >______
> >|NEST |
> >|_____ |TEST4|TEST8|TEST1|...
> >
> >
> >Result Kernel to user execute test RES(u8)
> >______
> >|NEST |
> >|_____ |RES4|RES8|RES1|...
>
> Hmm, I think it is not good idea to rely on the order, a netlink library
> can perhaps reorder it? Not sure here.
>
> >
> >Results are populated in the same order as the user passed the TESTs
> >flags. Does the above result format from kernel to user look OK ?
> >Else we need to have below way to form a result format, a nest should
> >be made for <test_flag,
> >result> but since test flags are in different enum other than
> >devlink_attr and RES being part of devlink_attr, I believe it's not
> >good practice to make the below structure.
>
> Not a structure, no. Have it as another nest (could be the same attr as
> the parent nest:
>
> ______
> |NEST |
> |_____ |NEST| |NEST| |NEST|
> TEST4,RES4 TEST8,RES8 TEST1, RES1
>
> also, it is flexible to add another attr if needed (like maybe result
> message string containing error message? IDK).
For above nesting we can have the attributes defined as below
Attribute in devlink_attr
enum devlink_attr {
....
....
DEVLINK_SELFTESTS_INFO, /* nested */
...
...
}
enum devlink_selftests {
DEVLINK_SELFTESTS_SOMETEST0, /* flag */
DEVLINK_SELFTESTS_SOMETEST1,
DEVLINK_SELFTESTS_SOMETEST2,
...
...
}
enum devlink_selftest_result {
DEVLINK_SELFTESTS_RESULT, /* nested */
DEVLINK_SELFTESTS_TESTNUM, /* u32 indicating the test
number in devlink_selftests enum */
DEVLINK_SELFTESTS_RESULT_VAL, /* u8 skip, pass, fail.. */
...some future attrr...
}
enums in devlink_selftest_result can be put in devlink_attr though.
Does this look OK?
Thanks,
Vikas
>
>
>
> >______
> >|NEST |
> >|_____ | TEST4, RES4|TEST8,RES8|TEST1,RES1|...
> >
> >Let me know if my understanding is correct.
>
> [...]
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
