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;
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:50:16 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc:     Lixue Liang <lianglixuehao@126.com>, anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, lianglixue@greatwall.com.cn,
        Alexander H Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] igb: Assign random MAC address instead of fail in
 case of invalid one
Message-ID: <20221214125016.5a23c32a@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y5obql8TVeYEsRw8@unreal>
References: <20221213074726.51756-1-lianglixuehao@126.com>
        <Y5l5pUKBW9DvHJAW@unreal>
        <20221214085106.42a88df1@kernel.org>
        <Y5obql8TVeYEsRw8@unreal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 20:53:30 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 08:51:06AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 09:22:13 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:  
> > > NAK to any module driver parameter. If it is applicable to all drivers,
> > > please find a way to configure it to more user-friendly. If it is not,
> > > try to do the same as other drivers do.  
> > 
> > I think this one may be fine. Configuration which has to be set before
> > device probing can't really be per-device.  
> 
> This configuration can be different between multiple devices
> which use same igb module. Module parameters doesn't allow such
> separation.

Configuration of the device, sure, but this module param is more of 
a system policy. BTW the name of the param is not great, we're allowing
the use of random address, not an invalid address.

> Also, as a user, I despise random module parameters which I need
> to set after every HW update/replacement.

Agreed, IIUC the concern was alerting users to incorrect EEPROM values.
I thought falling back to a random address was relatively common, but
I haven't done the research.