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

[Michal Kubecek]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 03:42:12PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 10:22:19PM CEST, mkubecek@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 09:26:29PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:27:29PM CEST, mkubecek@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >> >
> >> >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?
> >
> >It's certainly an option but at the first glance it seems as just moving
> >what I tried to avoid one level lower. It would work around the u8 issue
> >(but as Johannes pointed out, we can handle it with genetlink when/if
> >the time comes). We would almost certainly have to split the replies
> >into multiple messages to keep the packet size reasonable. I'll have to
> >think more about the consequences for both kernel and userspace.
> >
> >My gut feeling is that out of the two extreme options (one universal
> >message type and message types corresponding to current infomask bits),
> >the latter is more appealing. After all, ethtool has been gathering
> >features that would need those ~60 message types for 20 years.
> 
> Yeah, but I think that we have to do one or another. Anything in between
> makes the code complex and uapi confusing. Let's start clean :)

I'll split the messages for v7.

Michal