On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 04:30:31PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2020 23:07:48 +0000 Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 03:46:06PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 May 2020 14:58:07 +0000 Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > To those new on CC -- this is intended to be a simple generic interface > > > > to the kernel to annotate when the firwmare has crashed leaving the > > > > driver or system in a questionable state, in the worst case requiring > > > > full system reboot. This series is first addressing only a few > > > > networking patches, however, I already have an idea of where such > > > > firmware crashes happen across the tree. The goal with this series then > > > > is to first introduce the simple framework, and only if that moves > > > > forward will I continue to chug on with the rest of the drivers / > > > > subsystems. > > > > > > > > This is *not* a networking specific problem only. > > > > > > > > This v3 augments the last series by introducing the uevent for panic > > > > events, one of them is during tainting. The uvent mechanism is > > > > independent from any of this firmware taint mechanism. I've also > > > > addressed Jessica Yu's feedback. Given I've extended the patches a bit > > > > with other minor cleanup which checkpatch.pl complains over, and since > > > > this infrastructure is still being discussed, I've trimmed the patch > > > > series size to only cover drivers for which I've received an Acked-by > > > > from the respective driver maintainer, or where we have bug reports to > > > > support such dire situations on the driver such as ath10k. > > > > > > > > During the last v2 it was discussed that we should instead use devlink > > > > for this work, however the initial RFC patches produced by Jakub > > > > Kicinski [0] shows how devlink is networking specific, and the intent > > > > behind this series is to produce simple helpers which can be used by *any* > > > > device driver, for any subsystem, not just networking. Subsystem > > > > specific infrastructure to help address firwmare crashes may still make > > > > sense, however that does not mean we *don't* need something even more > > > > generic regardless of the subsystem the issue happens on. Since uevents > > > > for taints are exposed, we now expose these through uapi as well, and > > > > that was something which eventually had to happen given that the current > > > > scheme of relying on sensible character representations for each taint > > > > will not scale beyond the alphabet. > > > > > > Nacked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Care to elaborate? > > I elaborated in the previous thread No you didn't. > and told you I will nack this, That's all you said. > but sure let's go over this again. > > For the third time saying the devlink is networking specific is not > true. It was created as a netlink configuration channel for devices > when there is no networking reference that could be used. It can be > compiled in or out much like sysfs. Perhaps I didn't get your email but this clarification was in no way shape or form present in your reply on that thread. > And as I've shown you devlink already has the uAPI for what you're > trying to achieve. I read your patch, and granted, I will accept I was under the incorrect assumption that this can only be used by networking devices, however it the devlink approach achieves getting userspace the ability with iproute2 devlink util to query a device health, on to which we can peg firmware health. But *this* patch series is not about health status and letting users query it, its about a *critical* situation which has come up with firmware requiring me to reboot my system, and the lack of *any* infrastructure in the kernel today to inform userspace about it. So say we use netlink to report a critical health situation, how are we informing userspace with your patch series about requring a reboot? Luis
