Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:57:03 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@mellanox.com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
        Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to
 devlink reload command
Message-ID: <20200803135703.16967635@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200803141442.GB2290@nanopsycho>
References: <20200728135808.GC2207@nanopsycho>
        <464add44-3ab1-21b8-3dba-a88202350bb9@intel.com>
        <20200728114458.762b5396@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
        <d6fbfedd-9022-ff67-23ed-418607beecc2@intel.com>
        <20200728130653.7ce2f013@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
        <04f00024-758c-bc19-c187-49847c24a5a4@mellanox.com>
        <20200729140708.5f914c15@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
        <3352bd96-d10e-6961-079d-5c913a967513@mellanox.com>
        <20200730161101.48f42c5b@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
        <0f2467fd-ee2e-1a51-f9c1-02f8a579d542@mellanox.com>
        <20200803141442.GB2290@nanopsycho>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 16:14:42 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >devlink dev reload [ net-ns-respawn { PID | NAME | ID } ] [ driver-param-init
> >] [ fw-activate [ --live] ]  
> 
> Jakub, why do you prefer to have another extra level-specific option
> "live"? I think it is clear to have it as a separate level. The behaviour
> of the operation is quite different.

I was trying to avoid having to provide a Cartesian product of
operation and system disruption level, if any other action can
be done "live" at some point.

But no strong feelings about that one.

Really, as long as there is no driver-specific defaults (or as 
little driver-specific anything as possible) and user actions 
are clearly expressed (fw-reset does not necessarily imply
fw-activation) - the API will be fine IMO.