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:   Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:04:18 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
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: <20200804100418.GA2210@nanopsycho>
References: <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>
 <20200803135703.16967635@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200803135703.16967635@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 10:57:03PM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
>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.

Clear actions, that is what I'm fine with.

But not sure how you think we can achieve no driver-specific defaults.
We have them already :/ I don't think we can easily remove them and not
break user expectations.