Hi Andrew, Thanks for replying. Sorry, for not being prompt as I was traveling. Please find some further follow-up questions below Salil. > From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Lunn > Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 10:44 PM > To: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; yuvalm@xxxxxxxxxxxx; leon@xxxxxxxxxx; > Zhuangyuzeng (Yisen) <yisen.zhuang@xxxxxxxxxx>; lipeng (Y) > <lipeng321@xxxxxxxxxx>; mehta.salil@xxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linuxarm > <linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] net: hns3: Adds support of debugfs to > HNS3 driver > > > 3. Debugfs looks more unstructured unlike sysfs. Is there any > > de-facto standard of the user-api or drivers are allowed to > > use it in any way to expose the information from kernel. > > Hi Salil > > You don't really have a user api using debugfs, because debugfs is > unstable. Anything can change at any time. Any user tools which use > debugfs can be expected to break at any time as the information in > debugfs changes. debugfs is for debug, not to export an API. And in > production systems, it is often not mounted. Sure, I understand. > > As much as possible, you are recommended to use existing APIs, > ethtool, devlink, etc. Agreed. But what about if we want to expose anything related to firmware to user-space using the debugfs, assuming we are presenting information in structured way and not as a black-box to some user-space application. Is it something which might be discouraged? Many Thanks
