[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+OKeVE9jaoL4qhf@nanopsycho>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:41:45 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Fei Qin <fei.qin@...igine.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...igine.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 1/2] devlink: expose port function commands
to assign VFs to multiple netdevs
Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 12:36:53PM CET, simon.horman@...igine.com wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 01:21:22PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 06:42:27PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 16:36:02 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
>> > > +VF assignment setup
>> > > +---------------------------
>> > > +In some cases, NICs could have multiple physical ports per PF. Users can assign VFs to
>> > > +different ports.
>> >
>> > Please make sure you run make htmldocs when changing docs,
>> > this will warn.
>> >
>> > > +- Get count of VFs assigned to physical port::
>> > > +
>> > > + $ devlink port show pci/0000:82:00.0/0
>> > > + pci/0000:82:00.0/0: type eth netdev enp130s0np0 flavour physical port 0 splittable true lanes 4
>> >
>> > Physical port has VFs? My knee jerk reaction is that allocating
>> > resources via devlink is fine but this seems to lean a bit into
>> > forwarding. How do other vendors do it? What's the mapping of VFs
>> > to ports?
>>
>> I don't understand the meaning of VFs here. If we are talking about PCI
>> VFs, other vendors follow PCI spec "9.3.3.3.1 VF Enable" section, which
>> talks about having one bit to enable all VFs at once. All these VFs will
>> have separate netdevs.
>
>Yes, that is the case here too (before and after).
>
>What we are talking about is the association of VFs to physical ports
>(in the case where a NIC has more than one physical port).
What is "the association"?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists