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:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:46:16 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Moshe Shemesh <moshe@mellanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 01/13] devlink: Add reload action option
 to devlink reload command
Message-ID: <20200819124616.GA2314@nanopsycho.orion>
References: <1597657072-3130-1-git-send-email-moshe@mellanox.com>
 <1597657072-3130-2-git-send-email-moshe@mellanox.com>
 <20200817163612.GA2627@nanopsycho>
 <3ed1115e-8b44-b398-55f2-cee94ef426fd@nvidia.com>
 <20200818171010.11e4b615@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <cd0e3d7e-4746-d26d-dd0c-eb36c9c8a10f@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cd0e3d7e-4746-d26d-dd0c-eb36c9c8a10f@nvidia.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:18:22PM CEST, moshe@nvidia.com wrote:
>
>On 8/19/2020 3:10 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:10:36 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
>> > On 8/17/2020 7:36 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:37:40AM CEST, moshe@mellanox.com wrote:
>> > > > Add devlink reload action to allow the user to request a specific reload
>> > > > action. The action parameter is optional, if not specified then devlink
>> > > > driver re-init action is used (backward compatible).
>> > > > Note that when required to do firmware activation some drivers may need
>> > > > to reload the driver. On the other hand some drivers may need to reset
>> > > Sounds reasonable. I think it would be good to indicate that though. Not
>> > > sure how...
>> > Maybe counters on the actions done ? Actually such counters can be
>> > useful on debug, knowing what reloads we had since driver was up.
>> Wouldn't we need to know all types of reset of drivers may do?
>
>
>Right, we can't tell all reset types driver may have, but we can tell which
>reload actions were done.
>
>> I think documenting this clearly should be sufficient.
>> 
>> A reset counter for the _requested_ reset type (fully maintained by
>> core), however - that may be useful. The question "why did this NIC
>> reset itself / why did the link just flap" comes up repeatedly.
>
>
>I will add counters on which reload were done. reload_down()/up() can return
>which actions were actually done and devlink will show counters.

Why a counter? Just return what was done over netlink reply.

>