netdev - RE: [net-next V9 03/14] devlink: Support add and delete devlink port

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: <BY5PR12MB4322C9132AFAF14E00E7B447DCA09@BY5PR12MB4322.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jan 2021 03:31:01 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
To:     "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "alexander.duyck@...il.com" <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        "edwin.peer@...adcom.com" <edwin.peer@...adcom.com>,
        "dsahern@...nel.org" <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        "kiran.patil@...el.com" <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
        "jacob.e.keller@...el.com" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        "david.m.ertman@...el.com" <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
        "dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Vu Pham <vuhuong@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next V9 03/14] devlink: Support add and delete devlink port



> From: Samudrala, Sridhar <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 2:21 AM
> 
> > $ devlink port show
> > pci/0000:06:00.0/65535: type eth netdev ens2f0np0 flavour physical
> > port 0 splittable false
> >
> > $ devlink port add pci/0000:06:00.0 flavour pcisf pfnum 0 sfnum 88
> 
> Do we need to specify pfnum when adding a SF port? Isn't this redundant?
> Isn't there a 1:1 mapping between the pci device and a pfnum?
>
No. it's not entirely redundant.
Currently in most cases today it is same function number as that of PCI device.
Netronome has one devlink instance that represents multiple PCI devices.
Someday mlx5 driver might have it too for the single eswitch instance among multiple PCI devices of one physical card.
So it is needed to specify.