[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7cc28e48-58c8-9ec0-b0bd-4b42a8e55b43@mellanox.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:04:58 +0200
From: Arkadi Sharshevsky <arkadis@...lanox.com>
To: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch,
vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
saeedm@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com,
idosch@...lanox.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, linville@...driver.com,
gospo@...adcom.com, steven.lin1@...adcom.com, yuvalm@...lanox.com,
ogerlitz@...lanox.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC v2 08/11] mlxsw: spectrum_dpipe: Connect
dpipe tables to resources
On 11/27/2017 06:12 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/23/17 6:40 AM, Arkadi Sharshevsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/19/2017 05:58 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 11/19/17 2:16 AM, Arkadi Sharshevsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/18/2017 09:19 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/17 9:18 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>> From: Arkadi Sharshevsky <arkadis@...lanox.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Connect current dpipe tables to resources. The tables are connected
>>>>>> in the following fashion:
>>>>>> 1. IPv4 host - KVD hash single
>>>>>> 2. IPv6 host - KVD hash double
>>>>>> 3. Adjacency - KVD linear
>>>>>
>>>>> Those descriptions would be helpful to the user. A description attribute
>>>>> for the resources?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As described in the cover letter this resources are used by the
>>>> majority of the ASICs lookup processes. So currently there is one
>>>> to one mapping but is should increase as more tables are exposed,
>>>> so I don't think its a good idea to maintain such an attribute.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'IPv4 host' yes, but I mean the term 'KVD hash single'? Is it the same
>>> across all h/w vendors? I have only seen that in the context of MLX. If
>>> it is a MLX term then a description to the user that KVD hash single ==
>>> IPv4 host is warranted.
>>>
>>
>> But this relation is wrong, there is no equality here. The LPM, FDB and
>> VID to FID mapping are all can be modeled as lookup tables (via dpipe)
>> that use KVD hash single resource.
>>
>> This description string will grow very long. I dont think this is the
>> right place to document such thing, eitherway, the user can dump the
>> dpipe tables and see which is mapped to what resource.
>
> Users should not have to find a PRM or user guide for *each version of
> their hardware* to program something so fundamental. This is software.
I still don't understand, you can dump the dpipe table to see which
tables use which resource. Why I need this redundant documentation string
in the kernel?
> We can make it user friendly. Use of vendor specific terms is fine --
> allows correlation to vendor docs. But there should also be text to help
IMHO such documentation strings should not be in the kernel.
> the user correlate vendor terms to generic industry terms.
>
Really you want to add DEVLINK_RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION string attributed?
"
Used by the following hardware tables
- VID-to-FID
- LPM
- FDB
- HOST
...
"
Again I think it is redundant, just dump those tables. No need to use
user-guides nor PRM.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists