[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <43F901BD926A4E43B106BF17856F07550145FC763B@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:28:54 -0700
From: "Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
sf-linux-drivers <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>
Subject: RE: rtnetlink and many VFs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org]
> On Behalf Of Ben Hutchings
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:12 AM
> To: Rose, Gregory V
> Cc: David Miller; netdev; sf-linux-drivers
> Subject: RE: rtnetlink and many VFs
>
> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 10:50 -0700, Rose, Gregory V wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:40 AM
> > > To: Rose, Gregory V
> > > Cc: David Miller; netdev; sf-linux-drivers
> > > Subject: RE: rtnetlink and many VFs
> > >
>
> > I still feel like eventually the number of VFs will outgrow the
> > capability of a single message to handle, especially when VFs will
> > have the capability of having multiple MAC address and VLAN filters
> > assigned to them. And it seems orthogonal to me to mirror the 'ip
> > link set eth(x) vf (n)' syntax with a 'ip link show eth(x) vf (n)'
> > syntax.
> >
> > That's just me though.
> [...]
>
> I think it would be a useful extension, but we have to keep the current
> API working as far as possible.
Sure, sounds good. I'm working on something that will patch things up for the present use case right now.
- Greg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists