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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:41:29 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, idosch@...lanox.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com, saeedm@...lanox.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com, dirk.vandermerwe@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, dsahern@...il.com, vijaya.guvva@...ium.com, satananda.burla@...ium.com, raghu.vatsavayi@...ium.com, felix.manlunas@...ium.com, gospo@...adcom.com, sathya.perla@...adcom.com, vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com, tariqt@...lanox.com, eranbe@...lanox.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower vnic Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 04:32:02AM CET, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com wrote: >On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:29:41 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >This will associate the PF netdev with physical port, incl. all ethtool >> >information. Im not sure we want to do that. phy_repr carries this >> >functionality. >> >> I was not sure originally what this port is. Okay, what I would like to >> see is another port flavour for "pf" and "vf". I guess that since the pf >> has the same pci address, it would fall under the same devlink instance. >> For vfs, which have each separate pci address, I would like to create >> devlink instance for each and associate with one devlink port flavour >> "vf". > >Why do we need a devlink instance and phys port name for vfs? Just >wondering.. It seems they should be covered by having different bus >address. For full coverage of all netdevs? It is a matter of identification I believe. Pfs are under the same pci address for nfp right? I think that user has to see then and distinguish. For VFs and nfp, I agree this is probably not necessary, as the pci address is different and there is also a different driver name. But for mlx5 for example, the same driver name is shown for all netdevs including VFs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists