[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200902080011.GI3794@nanopsycho.orion>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:00:11 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"roid@...lanox.com" <roid@...lanox.com>,
"saeedm@...lanox.com" <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] devlink: Consider other controller while
building phys_port_name
Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 06:26:12AM CEST, parav@...dia.com wrote:
>
>
>> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 2:59 AM
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:17:42 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > >> The external PFs need to have an extra attribute with "external
>> > >> enumeration" what would be used for the representor netdev name as well.
>> > >>
>> > >> pci/0000:00:08.0/0: type eth netdev enp0s8f0 flavour physical
>> > >> pci/0000:00:08.0/1: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_pf0 flavour pcipf
>> > >> pfnum 0
>> > >> pci/0000:00:08.0/2: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_e0pf0 flavour pcipf
>> > >> extnum 0 pfnum 0
>> > >
>> > >How about a prefix of "ec" instead of "e", like?
>> > >pci/0000:00:08.0/2: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_ec0pf0 flavour pcipf
>> > >ecnum 0 pfnum 0
>> >
>> > Yeah, looks fine to me. Jakub?
>>
>> I don't like that local port doesn't have the controller ID.
>>
>Adding controller ID to local port will change name for all non smartnic deployments that affects current vast user base :-(
>
>> Whether PCI port is external or not is best described by a the peer relation.
>
>How about adding an attribute something like below in addition to controller id.
>
>$ devlink port show
>pci/0000:00:08.0/1: type eth netdev enp0s8f0_pf0 flavour pcipf pfnum 0 ecnum 0 external true splitable false
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Failing that, at the very least "external" should be a separate attribute/flag from
>> the controller ID.
>>
>Ok. Looks fine to me.
>
>Jiri?
Yeah, why not.
>
>> I didn't quite get the fact that you want to not show controller ID on the local
>> port, initially.
>Mainly to not_break current users.
You don't have to take it to the name, unless "external" flag is set.
But I don't really see the point of showing !external, cause such
controller number would be always 0. Jakub, why do you think it is
needed?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists