Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V1 0/3] net/mlx4_core: Allow setting init-time device specific parameters

From: Or Gerlitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:02:05 +0200

On 3/12/2015 11:00 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:07:35AM +0200, Hadar Hen Zion wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:14 PM, David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> From: Amir Vadai <[email-masked]>
>>> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:08:50 +0200
>>>
>>>> Also, customers are paying for a very sophisticated piece of hardware, and we would like to enable power user to tweak it in some situtations. Of course the default mode should be used in 99% of the use cases.
>>> How much money someone pays for your hardware has nothing to do with the standards by which we design userspace interfaces to configure these devices.
>>>
>>> These textual interfaces are arbitrary, and you are choosing it only because you cannot come up with a more reasonable scheme,
>>>
>>> I'm not applying these changes.
>>> ---
>> In previous conversations Greg suggested us to use configfs.
>>
>> Is this case a misuse of configfs? maybe configfs should be deprecated... Greg?
> No, this has nothing to do with the validity of configfs, please re-read what David said to you.

Greg,

So.. M2-- reading Dave's words I understand that he's against textual 
interfacessuch as configfs and prefers others. This brings two questions 
to the table (1) do we need to deprecate these textual interfaces / 
configfs and avoid using them for configuration purposes with new code? 
(2) does programmable interface such as netlink is the way to go for our 
purposes here (and elsewhere)?

Or.