[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y48C699Lx3J9LDkI@nanopsycho>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 09:52:59 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Shannon Nelson <shnelson@....com>, Shay Drory <shayd@...dia.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, danielj@...dia.com,
yishaih@...dia.com, jiri@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
parav@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3 4/8] devlink: Expose port function commands
to control RoCE
Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 03:02:34AM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 15:37:26 -0800 Shannon Nelson wrote:
>> > enum devlink_port_function_attr {
>> > DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_UNSPEC,
>> > DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_HW_ADDR, /* binary */
>> > DEVLINK_PORT_FN_ATTR_STATE, /* u8 */
>> > DEVLINK_PORT_FN_ATTR_OPSTATE, /* u8 */
>> > + DEVLINK_PORT_FN_ATTR_CAPS, /* bitfield32 */
>>
>> Will 32 bits be enough, or should we start off with u64? It will
>> probably be fine, but since we're setting a uapi thing here we probably
>> want to be sure we won't need to change it in the future.
>
>Ah, if only variable size integer types from Olek were ready :(
Or, if the bitfield was variable length from the beginning (as I asked
for :)).
>
>Unfortunately there is no bf64 today, so we'd either have to add soon
>to be deprecated bf64 or hold off waiting for Olek...
>I reckon the dumb thing of merging bf32 may be the best choice right
>now :(
+1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists