Re: [PATCH net-next v6 04/15] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

[Jiri Pirko]

Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 09:26:29PM CEST, jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:27:29PM CEST, mkubecek@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 10:41:51AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:52:41PM CEST, mkubecek@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>> >On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> >> Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 01:49:59PM CEST, mkubecek@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>> >> >+
>>> >> >+    ETHTOOL_A_HEADER_DEV_INDEX	(u32)		device ifindex
>>> >> >+    ETHTOOL_A_HEADER_DEV_NAME	(string)	device name
>>> >> >+    ETHTOOL_A_HEADER_INFOMASK	(u32)		info mask
>>> >> >+    ETHTOOL_A_HEADER_GFLAGS	(u32)		flags common for all requests
>>> >> >+    ETHTOOL_A_HEADER_RFLAGS	(u32)		request specific flags
>>> >> >+
>>> >> >+ETHTOOL_A_HEADER_DEV_INDEX and ETHTOOL_A_HEADER_DEV_NAME identify the device
>>> >> >+message relates to. One of them is sufficient in requests, if both are used,
>>> >> >+they must identify the same device. Some requests, e.g. global string sets, do
>>> >> >+not require device identification. Most GET requests also allow dump requests
>>> >> >+without device identification to query the same information for all devices
>>> >> >+providing it (each device in a separate message).
>>> >> >+
>>> >> >+Optional info mask allows to ask only for a part of data provided by GET
>>> >> 
>>> >> How this "infomask" works? What are the bits related to? Is that request
>>> >> specific?
>>> >
>>> >The interpretation is request specific, the information returned for
>>> >a GET request is divided into multiple parts and client can choose to
>>> >request one of them (usually one). In the code so far, infomask bits
>>> >correspond to top level (nest) attributes but I would rather not make it
>>> >a strict rule.
>>> 
>>> Wait, so it is a matter of verbosity? If you have multiple parts and the
>>> user is able to chose one of them, why don't you rather have multiple
>>> get commands, one per bit. This infomask construct seems redundant to me.
>>
>>I thought it was a matter of verbosity because it is a very basic
>>element of the design, it was even advertised in the cover letter among
>>the basic ideas, it has been there since the very beginning and in five
>>previous versions through year and a half, noone did question it. That's
>>why I thought you objected against unclear description, not against the
>>concept as such.
>>
>>There are two reasons for this design. First is to reduce the number of
>>requests needed to get the information. This is not so much a problem of
>>ethtool itself; the only existing commands that would result in multiple
>>request messages would be "ethtool <dev>" and "ethtool -s <dev>". Maybe
>>also "ethtool -x/-X <dev>" but even if the indirection table and hash
>>key have different bits assigned now, they don't have to be split even
>>if we split other commands. It may be bigger problem for daemons wanting
>>to keep track of system configuration which would have to issue many
>>requests whenever a new device appears.
>>
>>Second reason is that with 8-bit genetlink command/message id, the space
>>is not as infinite as it might seem. I counted quickly, right now the
>>full series uses 14 ids for kernel messages, with split you propose it
>>would most likely grow to 44. For full implementation of all ethtool
>>functionality, we could get to ~60 ids. It's still only 1/4 of the
>>available space but it's not clear what the future development will look
>>like. We would certainly need to be careful not to start allocating new
>>commands for single parameters and try to be foreseeing about what can
>>be grouped together. But we will need to do that in any case.
>>
>>On kernel side, splitting existing messages would make some things a bit
>>easier. It would also reduce the number of scenarios where only part of
>>requested information is available or only part of a SET request fails.
>
>Okay, I got your point. So why don't we look at if from the other angle.
>Why don't we have only single get/set command that would be in general
>used to get/set ALL info from/to the kernel. Where we can have these
>bits (perhaps rather varlen bitfield) to for user to indicate which data
>is he interested in? This scales. The other commands would be
>just for action.
>
>Something like RTM_GETLINK/RTM_SETLINK. Makes sense?

+ I think this might safe a lot of complexicity aroung your proposed
inner ops.

>
>
>>
>>Michal