Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
References: <20220929185207.2183473-1-daniel.machon@microchip.com>
 <20220929185207.2183473-2-daniel.machon@microchip.com>
 <87leq1uiyc.fsf@nvidia.com> <YzqH/zuzvh35PVvF@DEN-LT-70577>
User-agent: mu4e 1.6.6; emacs 28.1
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com>
To:     <Daniel.Machon@microchip.com>
CC:     <petrm@nvidia.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <davem@davemloft.net>, <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
        <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>, <edumazet@google.com>,
        <kuba@kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        <Lars.Povlsen@microchip.com>, <Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>, <joe@perches.com>,
        <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, <Horatiu.Vultur@microchip.com>,
        <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>, <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/6] net: dcb: add new pcp selector to app
 object
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 10:22:48 +0200
In-Reply-To: <YzqH/zuzvh35PVvF@DEN-LT-70577>
Message-ID: <87czb9xpsi.fsf@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2022 08:41:40.1941
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a034a1b6-659d-4ecc-b737-08daa51b1787
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT032.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM4PR12MB7767
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE
        autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


<Daniel.Machon@microchip.com> writes:

> Right, I see your point. But. First thought; this starts to look a little
> hackish.

So it is. That's what poking backward compatible holes in an existing
API gets you. Look at modern C++ syntax for an extreme example :)

But read Jakub's email. It looks like we don't actually need to worry
about this.

> Looking through the 802.1Q-2018 std again, sel bits 0, 6 and 7 are 
> reserved (implicit for future standard implementation?). Do we know of
> any cases, where a new standard version would introduce new values beyond
> what was reserved in the first place for future use? I dont know myself.
>
> I am just trying to raise a question of whether using the std APP attr
> with a new high (255) selector, really could be preferred over this new
> non-std APP attr with new packed payload.

Yeah. We'll need to patch lldpad anyway. We can basically choose which
way we patch it. And BTW, using the too-short attribute payload of
course breaks it _as well_, because they don't do any payload size
validation.