> -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Cree [mailto:ec...@solarflare.com] > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:53 AM > To: Skidmore, Donald C > Cc: Hiroshi Shimamoto; vyase...@redhat.com; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Alexander > Duyck; Bjørn Mork; e1000-de...@lists.sourceforge.net; > net...@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.
