[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1398189799.7767.80.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:03:19 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: David Gibson <dgibson@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>,
Sujith Sankar <ssujith@...co.com>,
Govindarajulu Varadarajan <govindarajulu90@...il.com>,
Neel Patel <neepatel@...co.com>,
Nishank Trivedi <nistrive@...co.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 14:14 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> I believe I've found a problem with netlink handling which can be
> triggered on Cisco enic devices with a large number (30-40) of virtual
> functions. I believe this is the cause of a real customer problem
> we've seen.
>
> * When requesting a list of interfaces with RTM_GETLINK, enic devices
> (and currently, _only_ enic devices) report IFLA_VF_PORTS
> information
>
> * IFLA_VF_PORTS information has at least 90 bytes ber virtual function
>
> * Unlike IFLA_VFINFO_LIST, the ports information is always reported,
> regardless of the setting of the IFLA_EXT_MASK parameter
[...]
So I think you should make reporting of IFLA_VF_PORTS dependent on the
same flag as IFLA_VFINFO_LIST.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. - Leonard Brandwein
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (812 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists