Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-212653-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 02:49:25 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com>,
	dtatulea@nvidia.com, jasowang@redhat.com,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: support set mac address from vdpa tool
Message-ID: <20240613024756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20240611053239.516996-1-lulu@redhat.com>
 <20240611185810.14b63d7d@kernel.org>
 <ZmlAYcRHMqCgYBJD@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20240612031356-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <ZmlMuGGY2po6LLCY@nanopsycho.orion>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZmlMuGGY2po6LLCY@nanopsycho.orion>

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:22:32AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:15:44AM CEST, mst@redhat.com wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 08:29:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 03:58:10AM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:32:32 +0800 Cindy Lu wrote:
> >> >> Add new UAPI to support the mac address from vdpa tool
> >> >> Function vdpa_nl_cmd_dev_config_set_doit() will get the
> >> >> MAC address from the vdpa tool and then set it to the device.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The usage is: vdpa dev set name vdpa_name mac **:**:**:**:**:**
> >> >
> >> >Why don't you use devlink?
> >> 
> >> Fair question. Why does vdpa-specific uapi even exist? To have
> >> driver-specific uapi Does not make any sense to me :/
> >
> >I am not sure which uapi do you refer to? The one this patch proposes or
> >the existing one?
> 
> Sure, I'm sure pointing out, that devlink should have been the answer
> instead of vdpa netlink introduction. That ship is sailed,

> now we have
> unfortunate api duplication which leads to questions like Jakub's one.
> That's all :/


Yea there's no point to argue now, there were arguments this and that
way.  I don't think we currently have a lot
of duplication, do we?

-- 
MST