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: Fri, 14 May 2010 10:19:00 -0700 From: Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com> To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <chrisw@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 V7 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port management (was iovnl) On 5/14/10 9:42 AM, "Patrick McHardy" <kaber@...sh.net> wrote: > Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> Maybe a better structure would be to separate the two cases, also allowing >> a port profile to be associated with both the PF and with each of its VFs? >> >> Something like this: >> >> [IFLA_NUM_VF] >> [IFLA_VF_PORTS] >> [IFLA_VF_PORT] >> [IFLA_VF_PORT_*], ... >> [IFLA_VF_PORT] >> [IFLA_VF_PORT_*], ... >> [IFLA_PORT_SELF] >> [IFLA_VF_PORT_*], ... > > That would also be fine. I want to make sure I've got this right before starting on ver8 of patch: - we'll use the layout listed above - RTM_SETLINK msg includes the full nested layout - contains IFLA_VF_PORTs for all VFs of a PF - OR, contains IFLA_PORT_SELF if PF is it's own VF - it's up to the receiver to compare for changes for each VF - RTM_GETLINK msg includes the full nested layout - same rules as RTM_SETLINK above I think we should redo the other IFLA_VF_xxx msgs in the same style. I'm not going to tackle that for IFLA_VF_PORTS patch, but it would be a good followup patch. Do we have a plan? -scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists