netdev - Re: [RFC] switchdev: generate phys_port

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170728002743.48042821@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:27:43 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Sathya Perla <sathya.perla@...adcom.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, simon.horman@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] switchdev: generate phys_port_name in the core

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 07:35:07 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >+enum {
> >+	NETDEV_PORT_EXTERNAL,
> >+	NETDEV_PORT_EXTERNAL_SPLIT,
> >+	NETDEV_PORT_PCI_PF,  
> 
> Isn't PF also EXTERNAL? Cant VF be split? What I'm getting at, shoudn't
> these be flags?

By external PF do you mean not connected to the current host?  Yes we
could make a flag like that.  Right now I have picked "external" to
avoid too specific names like MAC/PHY/Ethernet...  There could be a
MAC-to-MAC connection for instance, so no PHY involved.  Should we go
with NETDEV_PORT_ETH?

I will make SPLIT into a flag.