netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 10/10] bnxt_en: add support for port_attr_get and and get_phys_port

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:13:35 +0300
From:   Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
Cc:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sathya Perla <sathya.perla@...adcom.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/10] bnxt_en: add support for port_attr_get and
 and get_phys_port_name

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl> wrote:

> This is even worse.  We already have two naming conventions in the
> kernel, mlx5 uses "%d" for legacy reasons.  nfp uses pf%dvf%d for vfs,

To make it clear, in mlx5 this is used only for the offloads/switchdev mode
and not for legacy mode, in the latter mode, a  VF probed to VM doesn't
have host side representation so there's no where to use that.

Or.

> which is better for two reasons: (a) it works with multi-PF devices;
> (b) naming something representor from switchdev perspective is
> pointless, you're not calling the external port netdev a physical port
> representor, even though it has the exact same relation to the port as
> with VFs (i.e. egressing traffic on the netdev will cause the switch
> to send to the given port).