[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BED87D2.3070308@trash.net>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 19:26:42 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 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)
Scott Feldman wrote:
> 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.
Agreed.
> Do we have a plan?
That sounds good to me. If you have any netlink related questions,
just let me know.
--
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