Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 11/18] switchdev: remove old netdev_switch_port_bridge_setlink

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 08:03:27 -0400

On 03/31/15 22:38, Scott Feldman wrote:

>
> It sounds like vendor extensions need to be supported someway,
> someday.

I agree. This is one of those impendance mismatch things. There are
scenarios where the feature may not be generic enough. But whatever
feature it is - eventually we should get it back into mainstream.
The danger of backdoors that Jiri alludes to is there.

> Maybe let's table vendor extensions for the time being and
> continue our focus on shared infrastructure: the things we know are
> common for all vendors.  We still have a lot of work just getting the
> common bits working.  Then we can take additional features one at a
> time and see if they're shared or vendor-specific.  In the meantime,
> there are always back doors such as genl for vendor to use; there is
> nothing preventing that.
>

And now i disagree. Did you read the back of your netdev tshirt? Quote:
---
I also don't buy the argument that "people can put arbitrary changes
into their kernel to do stuff like that".
---

Vendors can do whatever they want. We just should not be aiding them to
put proprietary shit. I want to stop coding around SDKs. Help me.

cheers,
jamal