Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver

[David Ahern]

On 2/8/24 7:15 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> Ah yes, the high frequency counters. Something that is definitely
>>> impossible to implement in a generic way. You were literally in the
>>> room at netconf when David Ahern described his proposal for this.

The key point of that proposal is host memory mapped to userspace where
H/W counters land (either via direct DMA by a H/W push or a
kthread/timer pulling in updates). That is similar to what is proposed here.

>>>  
>>
>> I was in the room and I am in support of David's idea, I like it a lot,
>> but I don't believe we have any concrete proposal, and we don't have any
>> use case for it in netdev for now, our use case for this is currently RDMA
>> and HPC specific.
>>
>> Also siimilar to devlink we will be the first to jump in and implement
>> the new API once defined, but this doesn't mean I need to throw away the
> 
> I'm not asking to throw it away. The question is only whether you get
> to push it upstream and skirt subsystem rules by posting a "misc" driver
> without even CCing the maintainers on v1 :|

Can you define what you mean by 'skirt subsystem rules'? That's a new
one to me.

BTW, there is already a broadcom driver under drivers/misc that seems to
have a lot of overlap capability wise to this driver. Perhaps a Broadcom
person could chime in.

> 
>> whole driver just because one single use case will be implemented in netdev
>> one day, and I am sure the netdev implementation won't satisfy all the
>> use-cases of high frequency counters:
>>
>> Also keep in mind high frequency counters is a very small part of the debug 
>> and access capabilities the mlx5ctl interface offers.
>>
>>> Anyway, I don't want to waste any more time arguing with you.
>>> My opinion is that the kernel community is under no obligation to carry
>>> your proprietary gateway interfaces. I may be wrong, but I'm entitled
>>> to my opinion.
>>
>> Thanks, I appreciate your honesty, but I must disagree with your Nack, we
>> provided enough argument for why we believe this approach is the right
>> way to go, it is clear from the responses on V3 and from the LWN article
>> that we have the community support for this open source project.
> 
> Why don't you repost it to netdev and see how many acks you get?
> I'm not the only netdev maintainer.

I'll go out on that limb and say I would have no problem ACK'ing the
driver. It's been proven time and time again that these kinds of
debugging facilities are needed for these kinds of complex,
multifunction devices.