RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control

["Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@intel.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 2196 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Cree [mailto:ecree@solarflare.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:53 AM
> To: Skidmore, Donald C
> Cc: Hiroshi Shimamoto; vyasevic@redhat.com; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Alexander
> Duyck; Bjørn Mork; e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; Choi, Sy Jong; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; David
> Laight; Hayato Momma
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control
> 
> On 20/02/15 21:05, Skidmore, Donald C wrote:
> > If a vender specific interface is objectionable maybe a simpler and more
> generic interface would be for the PF to be able to set a given VF into
> "trusted" mode... I admit exactly what 'trusted' meant would vary from
> vender to vender, but it would be a way for the driver to know it could allow
> configurations such as this.  Just an idea, since we seem to be getting more
> requests for things such as this.
> That's an even worse idea; now you have a generic interface with completely
> undefined semantics.
> The right way to do this, imho, is to use one of the standard interfaces for
> driver-specific gubbins - e.g. sysfs, genetlink or even (whisper it) ioctls - and
> put your 'VF promisc mode' setting there.  That way you have a vendor-
> specific interface with vendor-specified semantics.
> Of those options, I'd recommend sysfs as the best fit.
> The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for
> the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error, please
> notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Unless you are an
> addressee (or authorized to receive for an addressee), you may not use,
> copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this
> message. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
> message is strictly prohibited.

I do see your point, but I thought custom sysfs interfaces (not to even mention new ioctl's :) were frowned upon?  Which is why I didn't even consider sysfs as an option.
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥