Messages in this thread | | | From | Salil Mehta <> | Subject | RE: [RFC PATCH 00/10] net: hns3: Adds support of debugfs to HNS3 driver | Date | Sun, 11 Nov 2018 15:12:34 +0000 |
| |
Hi Andrew, Thanks for replying. Sorry, for not being prompt as I was traveling.
Please find some further follow-up questions below
Salil.
> From: linux-rdma-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma- > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Lunn > Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 10:44 PM > To: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com> > Cc: davem@davemloft.net; yuvalm@mellanox.com; leon@kernel.org; > Zhuangyuzeng (Yisen) <yisen.zhuang@huawei.com>; lipeng (Y) > <lipeng321@huawei.com>; mehta.salil@opnsrc.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; Linuxarm > <linuxarm@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] net: hns3: Adds support of debugfs to > HNS3 driver > > > 3. Debugfs looks more unstructured unlike sysfs. Is there any > > de-facto standard of the user-api or drivers are allowed to > > use it in any way to expose the information from kernel. > > Hi Salil > > You don't really have a user api using debugfs, because debugfs is > unstable. Anything can change at any time. Any user tools which use > debugfs can be expected to break at any time as the information in > debugfs changes. debugfs is for debug, not to export an API. And in > production systems, it is often not mounted.
Sure, I understand.
> > As much as possible, you are recommended to use existing APIs, > ethtool, devlink, etc.
Agreed. But what about if we want to expose anything related to firmware to user-space using the debugfs, assuming we are presenting information in structured way and not as a black-box to some user-space application. Is it something which might be discouraged?
Many Thanks
| |