netdev - Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower vnic

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20180324074129.GC1891@nanopsycho>
Date:   Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:41:29 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, idosch@...lanox.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
        dirk.vandermerwe@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
        ogerlitz@...lanox.com, dsahern@...il.com, vijaya.guvva@...ium.com,
        satananda.burla@...ium.com, raghu.vatsavayi@...ium.com,
        felix.manlunas@...ium.com, gospo@...adcom.com,
        sathya.perla@...adcom.com, vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com,
        tariqt@...lanox.com, eranbe@...lanox.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 10/12] nfp: flower: create port for flower
 vnic

Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 04:32:02AM CET, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:29:41 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >This will associate the PF netdev with physical port, incl. all ethtool
>> >information.  Im not sure we want to do that.  phy_repr carries this
>> >functionality.  
>> 
>> I was not sure originally what this port is. Okay, what I would like to
>> see is another port flavour for "pf" and "vf". I guess that since the pf
>> has the same pci address, it would fall under the same devlink instance.
>> For vfs, which have each separate pci address, I would like to create
>> devlink instance for each and associate with one devlink port flavour
>> "vf".
>
>Why do we need a devlink instance and phys port name for vfs?  Just
>wondering..  It seems they should be covered by having different bus
>address.  For full coverage of all netdevs?

It is a matter of identification I believe. Pfs are under the same pci
address for nfp right? I think that user has to see then and
distinguish. For VFs and nfp, I agree this is probably not necessary, as
the pci address is different and there is also a different driver name.
But for mlx5 for example, the same driver name is shown for all netdevs
including VFs.