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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201002174001.3012643-1-jarod@redhat.com> <20201002174001.3012643-7-jarod@redhat.com>
 <20201002121317.474c95f0@hermes.local> <CAKfmpSc3-j2GtQtdskEb8BQvB6q_zJPcZc2GhG8t+M3yFxS4MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201002154222.3adfe408@hermes.local>
In-Reply-To: <20201002154222.3adfe408@hermes.local>
From:   Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 3 Oct 2020 15:50:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKfmpSffg=mfVmy_06L3J28qe1ns6k_=SbSS7GvEJweUXLYmhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/6] bonding: make Kconfig toggle to disable
 legacy interfaces
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Davis <tadavis@lbl.gov>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 6:42 PM Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:23:46 -0400
> Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:13 PM Stephen Hemminger
> > <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri,  2 Oct 2020 13:40:01 -0400
> > > Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > By default, enable retaining all user-facing API that includes the use of
> > > > master and slave, but add a Kconfig knob that allows those that wish to
> > > > remove it entirely do so in one shot.
...
> > > This is problematic. You are printing both old and new values.
> > > Also every distribution will have to enable it.
> > >
> > > This looks like too much of change to users.
> >
> > I'd had a bit of feedback that people would rather see both, and be
> > able to toggle off the old ones, rather than only having one or the
> > other, depending on the toggle, so I thought I'd give this a try. I
> > kind of liked the one or the other route, but I see the problems with
> > that too.
> >
> > For simplicity, I'm kind of liking the idea of just not updating the
> > proc and sysfs interfaces, have a toggle entirely disable them, and
> > work on enhancing userspace to only use netlink, but ... it's going to
> > be a while before any such work makes its way to any already shipping
> > distros. I don't have a satisfying answer here.
> >
>
> I like the idea of having bonding proc and sysf apis optional.

I do too, but I'd see it more as something only userspace developers
would care about for a while, as an easy way to make absolutely
certain their code/distro is no longer reliant on them and only uses
netlink, not as something any normal user really has any reason to do.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@redhat.com