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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221122154934.13937-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
 <20221122201246.0276680f@kernel.org> <CAMZ6RqJ8_=h1SS7WmBeEB=75wsvVUZrb-8ELCDtpZb0gSs=2+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221123190649.6c35b93d@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20221123190649.6c35b93d@kernel.org>
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 14:33:58 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMZ6RqJ_rjbbwAfKzA3g2547D5vMke2KBnWCgBVmQqLcev1keg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: devlink: devlink_nl_info_fill: populate default information
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu. 24 Nov. 2022 at 12:06, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:42:41 +0900 Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > I see three solutions:
> >
> > 1/ Do it in the core, clean up all drivers using
> > devlink_info_driver_name_put() and make the function static (i.e.
> > forbid the drivers to set the driver name themselves).
> > N.B. This first solution does not work for
> > devlink_info_serial_number_put() because the core will not always be
> > able to provide a default value (e.g. my code only covers USB
> > devices).
> >
> > 2/ Keep track of which attribute is already set (as you suggested).
> >
> > 3/ Do a function devlink_nl_info_fill_default() and let the drivers
> > choose to either call that function or set the attributes themselves.
> >
> > I would tend to go with a mix of 1/ and 2/.
>
> I think 2/ is best because it will generalize to serial numbers while
> 1/ will likely not. 3/ is a smaller gain.
>
> Jiri already plumbed thru the struct devlink_info_req which is on the
> stack of the caller, per request, so we can add the bool / bitmap for
> already reported items there quite easily.

Sorry, let me clarify the next actions. Are you meaning that Jiri is
already working on the bitmap implementation and should I wait for his
patches first? Or do you expect me to do it?