[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140423092606.c73425b64d127b8f94469fcb@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:26:06 +1000
From: David Gibson <dgibson@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: ben@...adent.org.uk, netdev@...r.kernel.org, benve@...co.com,
ssujith@...co.com, govindarajulu90@...il.com, neepatel@...co.com,
nistrive@...co.com
Subject: Re: RFC: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:03:19 +0100
>
> > 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.
>
> I think that's what we'll have to do.
Ok, makes logical sense.
But does anyone know what tools make use of the IFLA_VF_PORTS
information? Do they set the IFLA_EXT_MASK already?
--
David Gibson <dgibson@...hat.com>
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists