[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220728184527.3f3dd520@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 18:45:27 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc: ecree@...inx.com, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com,
linux-net-drivers@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 12/14] sfc: set EF100 VF MAC address through
representor
On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 21:23:23 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> Sadly I was too busy with EF100 bring-up, and naïvely assumed that I
> could safely ignore devlink port stuff as it was so obviously going
> to be a classic Mellanox design: tasteless, overweight, and not
> cleanly mappable onto any other vendor. Which seems to have been
> true but they've managed to make it the standard anyway by virtue
> of being there first, as usual :'(
> (Yeah, I probably shouldn't publicly say things like that about
> another vendor's devs. But I'm getting frustrated at this recurring
> pattern.)
I spend an unhealthy amount of time thinking about the problem
of vendors not paying attention when new uAPIs are forged.
Happy to try things.
> Devlink port function *would* be useful for administering functions
> that don't have a representor. I just can't see any good reason
> why such things should ever exist.
The SmartNIC/DPU/IPU/isolated hv+IO CPU can expose storage functions
to the peer. nVidia is working on extending the devlink rate limit API
to cover such cases.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists