On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:02 PM Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:57:21 +0530, Vasundhara Volam wrote: > > This patchset adds support for configuration parameters setting through > > devlink_port. Each device registers supported configuration parameters > > table. > > Since you're not planning to address my comments, could you please quote > what I said explicite to the cover letter (quoting the last message): > > > As explained previously I think it's a very bad idea to add existing > configuration options to devlink, just because devlink has the ability > to persist the setting in NVM. Especially that for WoL you have to get > the link up so you potentially have all link config stuff as well. And > that n-tuple filters are one of the WoL options, meaning we'd need the > ability to persist n-tuple filters via devlink. > > The effort would be far better spent helping with migrating ethtool to > netlink, and allowing persisting there. > > I have not heard any reason why devlink is a better fit. I can imagine > you're just doing it here because it's less effort for you since > ethtool is not yet migrated. > > > And include something resembling a reason why you're deciding to > ignore it? >
I believe I have replied to all your emails on this topic. We just have a difference in opinion. Anyway, I have asked Vasundhara to quote your comments and to quote mine in the cover letter. Thanks.
