On Mon, 18 May 2020 22:29:53 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 13:28 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:25:09 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > > > It's pretty clear, but even then, first of all I doubt this is the case > > > for many of the places that you've sprinkled the annotation on, and > > > secondly it actually hides useful information. > > > > > > Regardless of the support issue, I think this hiding of information is > > > also problematic. > > > > > > I really think we'd all be better off if you just made a sysfs file (I > > > mistyped debugfs in some other email, sorry, apparently you didn't see > > > the correction in time) that listed which device(s) crashed and how many > > > times. That would actually be useful. Because honestly, if a random > > > device crashed for some random reason, that's pretty much a non-event. > > > If it keeps happening, then we might even want to know about it. > > > > Johannes - have you seen devlink health? I think we should just use > > that interface, since it supports all the things you're requesting, > > rather than duplicate it in sysfs. > > I haven't, and I'm glad to hear that's there, sounds good! > > I suspect that Luis wants something more generic though, that isn't just > applicable to netdevices, unless devlink grew some kind of non-netdev > stuff while I wasn't looking? :) It's intended to be a generic netlink channel for configuring devices. All the firmware-related interfaces have no dependencies on netdevs, in fact that's one of the reasons we moved to devlink - we don't want to hold rtnl lock just for talking to device firmware.
