[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACKFLikZ8t11Fp-0LLqLRHwBS4O6U04zuMhb8nGNS9E3-abzRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 23:08:11 -0700
From: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: Add support to configure SR-IOV VF
minimum and maximum queues.
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:56 PM, Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2018 20:19:54 -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>> > Isn't ndo_set_vf_xxx() considered a legacy interface and not planned to be
>> > extended?
>
> +1 it's painful to see this feature being added to the legacy
> API :( Another duplicated configuration knob.
>
>> I didn't know about that.
>>
>> > Shouldn't we enable this via ethtool on the port representor netdev?
>>
>> We discussed about this. ethtool on the VF representor will only work
>> in switchdev mode and also will not support min/max values.
>
> Ethtool channel API may be overdue a rewrite in devlink anyway, but I
> feel like implementing switchdev mode and rewriting features in devlink
> may be too much to ask.
Totally agreed. And switchdev mode doesn't seem to be that widely
used at the moment. Do you have other suggestions besides NDO?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists