Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-212687-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:21:07 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
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: <Zmqd45TnVVZYPwp8@nanopsycho.orion>
References: <20240611053239.516996-1-lulu@redhat.com>
 <20240611185810.14b63d7d@kernel.org>
 <ZmlAYcRHMqCgYBJD@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20240612031356-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <ZmlMuGGY2po6LLCY@nanopsycho.orion>
 <20240613024756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240613024756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>

Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:49:25AM CEST, mst@redhat.com wrote:
>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?

True. I think it would be good to establish guidelines for api
extensions in this area.

>
>-- 
>MST
>