[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190227201727.GA2042@nanopsycho>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 21:17:27 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/8] devlink: add PF and VF port flavours
Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 06:23:26PM CET, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:41:35 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 01:23:27PM CET, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>> >Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:30PM CET, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com wrote:
>> >>Current port flavours cover simple switches and DSA. Add PF
>> >>and VF flavours to cover "switchdev" SR-IOV NICs.
>> >>
>> >>Example devlink user space output:
>> >>
>> >>$ devlink port
>> >>pci/0000:82:00.0/0: type eth netdev p4p1 flavour physical
>> >>pci/0000:82:00.0/10000: type eth netdev eth0 flavour pcie_pf pf 0
>> >>pci/0000:82:00.0/10001: type eth netdev eth1 flavour pcie_vf pf 0 vf 0
>> >>pci/0000:82:00.0/10002: type eth netdev eth2 flavour pcie_vf pf 0 vf 1
>> >
>> >Wait a second, howcome pf and vfs have the same PCI address?
>>
>> Oh, I think you have these as eswitch port representors. Confusing...
>
>FWIW I don't like the word representor, its a port. We don't call
>physical ports "representors" even though from ASIC's point of view
>they are exactly the same.
My point is, they are not PFs and VFs. We have to find a way to clearly
see what's what.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists