8. lshw only shows the USB interfaces in the current configuration. I
presume because the kernel only shows this information in /sys.
However, lsusb is able to show the interfaces on all configuration
descriptors (it queries using libusb).
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 01:17:50PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>> The more I look at lshw, the more I'm ambivalent (I'm not against it,
>> just not for it either). It certainly collects a lot of relevant
>> information. However, I see the following problems.
>> 1. lshw tries to make things human readable. This is bad for
>> databases. We want to record things like immutable numeric hardware
>> IDs rather than the current contents of pci.ids. lshw does provide
>> -numeric, but this just adds the numbers to the human readable
>> 2. lshw collects a lot of data we may not be interested in. For
>> example, it reports the four different kinds of floppy disk drives my
>> BIOS supports. Also, L1, L2 and L3 cache. There is a bunch of stuff
>> like this. Is it useful? Some of it definitely is. But transferring
>> unwanted data over the wire is not being a good netizen. Also, some
>> people pay for data per MB transferred. We should be respectful.
>> 3. lshw supports '-sanitize', but this merely replaces the values with
>> '[REMOVED]'. See above for why we don't want to transmit this data.
>> 4. lshw reports bus configuration. I'm not sure if this is relevant or
>> how we would want to map this data. For example, if Dell uses the same
>> hardware in a bunch of laptops then we can deduplicate this to one
>> "hardware profile." But if bus configuration is part of this profile,
>> then we will have much higher cardinality. If this information is
>> important to have, we can make it work. But if not, it would be better
>> to try to save storage.
>> 5. lshw doesn't seem to have a way to separate "system hardware"
>> "transient hardware." To be fair, this may be impossible. But it would
>> be nice to understand the difference between, say, my bluetooth radio
>> and my YubiKey. I can't easily remove the former but I can the latter.
>> This also goes to cardinality reduction.
>> 6. lshw mixes things that are transient with things that are
>> permanent. We can remove the timestamps with -notime. But, for
>> example, it reports the kernel module currently assigned to a piece of
>> hardware. This is probably relevant information, but we will have to
>> carefully separate the data based on its lifespan.
>> 7. lshw reports virtual NICs as physical ones. We probably don't care
>> about this and I certainly don't want to bloat the database with
>> everyone's docker subnets unnecessarily.
> Again, I was just pointing out a tool we use internally for inventorying our
> hardware that I thought might be useful. If it doesn't work for you, feel
> free to choose something else. :-) I do appreciate the feedback you
> provided. I might work with folks on my team to address some of them as
> they could be of benefit for our work too.
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Cline <jeremy(a)jcline.org> wrote:
>> > On 11/09/2017 09:12 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:02:05PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>> >>> It isn't documented in F27, but it does work. However, we
>> >>> want at least this patch:
>> >> And some beaker stuff looks interesting in
>> >> Regardless. My overall point was the lshw tool seems to embody a lot
>> >> what you were looking for and thought it could be useful (with some
>> >> fixes) instead of re-inventing the wheel with new plugins. :-)
>> >> Up to you guys.
>> > I have no desire to re-invent wheels so I think it makes sense for us to
>> > use lshw. Knowing it's being used internally is also good.
>> > --
>> > Jeremy Cline
>> > XMPP: jeremy(a)jcline.org
>> > IRC: jcline
>> kernel mailing list -- kernel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org