[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140423092458.d9b5ee99d389e30e87b86376@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:24:58 +1000
From: David Gibson <dgibson@...hat.com>
To: "Christian Benvenuti (benve)" <benve@...co.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith@...co.com>,
Govindarajulu Varadarajan <govindarajulu90@...il.com>,
"Neel Patel (neepatel)" <neepatel@...co.com>,
Nishank Trivedi <nistrive@...co.com>
Subject: Re: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:14:04 +0000
"Christian Benvenuti (benve)" <benve@...co.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Gibson [mailto:dgibson@...hat.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:14 PM
> > To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > Cc: Christian Benvenuti (benve); Sujith Sankar (ssujith); Govindarajulu
> > Varadarajan; Neel Patel (neepatel); Nishank Trivedi
> > Subject: RFC: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs
> >
> > 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
>
> Is the fact that Enic is the only driver implementing ndo_get_vf_port [1]
> the root cause of the problem and the reason why this happens only with Enic?
Yes, or at least it's one of the factors.
>
> /Chris
>
> [1]
> This is what makes rtnl_port_size to account for vf_port_size*dev_num_vf(...)
> and rtnl_port_fill to add IFLA_VF_PORTS.
--
David Gibson <dgibson@...hat.com>
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists