[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140826083223.GQ1878@nanopsycho.lan>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:32:23 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, nhorman@...driver.com,
andy@...yhouse.net, tgraf@...g.ch, dborkman@...hat.com,
ogerlitz@...lanox.com, jesse@...ira.com, pshelar@...ira.com,
azhou@...ira.com, ben@...adent.org.uk, stephen@...workplumber.org,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vyasevic@...hat.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, jhs@...atatu.com, sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com,
f.fainelli@...il.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
linville@...driver.com, dev@...nvswitch.org, jasowang@...hat.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
ryazanov.s.a@...il.com, buytenh@...tstofly.org,
aviadr@...lanox.com, nbd@...nwrt.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
Neil.Jerram@...aswitch.com, ronye@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 04/12] rtnl: expose physical switch id for
particular device
Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 09:08:39PM CEST, john.fastabend@...il.com wrote:
>On 08/21/2014 09:18 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>The netdevice represents a port in a switch, it will expose
>>IFLA_PHYS_SWITCH_ID value via rtnl. Two netdevices with the same value
>>belong to one physical switch.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>
>What is the relation between phys_port_id and phys_switch_id?
>
>phys_port_id was intended to identify a set of ports that belong
>to a single uplink port,
>
>
> eth0 eth1 eth2 eth3 (host facing)
> | | | |
> | | | |
> +---+-------+-------+------+---+
> | embedded switch |
> +------------------------------+
> |
> MAC (network)
>
>In the NIC case there is a simply switch with a port to the
>network which we currently don't represent with a netdev. Any
>netdev where the phys_switch_id's are behind the same embedded
>switch.
I think that MAC in your picture should be represented as netdev (switch
port). Also, the other ports connected to eth0-3 should be represented
as netdevs. All of these + the MAC should have the same switch id.
>
>In the switch id case we are indicating the port is attached to
>the same embedded switch as well.
>
> eth0 eth1 eth2 eth3
> | | | |
> +----+----+----+----+----+
> | switch |
> +----+----+----+----+----+
>
>but they do not share an uplink port? So in this case each ethx
>has a unique phys_port_id but the same phys_switch_id?
Yes.
>
>In the first case both phys_port_id and phys_switch_id should
>be equal for all interfaces correct?
See above. In case of embedded switch on nic I believe that eth0-eth3
shoud have the same port_id and no switch_id as they are not ports of
switch (the counterparts in switch (marked as "+" on your picture are
the switch ports)
>
>Is that clear/useful at all? We need to document this somewhere
>if/when the patches are submitted otherwise I doubt we will get it
>consistently right across drivers. There could for example be
>somewhat strange devices with virtual functions hanging off of the
>switch.
I will extend the documentation to my "net: introduce generic switch
devices support" patch.
>
>Thanks,
>John
>
>--
>John Fastabend Intel Corporation
--
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