netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/12] nfp: add support for multi-pf configuration

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230725115933.29171e72@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 11:59:33 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
Cc: Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>, David Miller
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman
 <simon.horman@...igine.com>, Tianyu Yuan <tianyu.yuan@...hogine.com>,
 "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, oss-drivers
 <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/12] nfp: add support for multi-pf
 configuration

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 01:28:34 +0000 Yinjun Zhang wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 8:01 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 11:48:09 +0200 Louis Peens wrote:  
> > > This patch series is introducing multiple PFs for multiple ports NIC
> > > assembled with NFP3800 chip. This is done since the NFP3800 can
> > > support up to 4 PFs, and is more in-line with the modern expectation
> > > that each port/netdev is associated with a unique PF.
> > >
> > > For compatibility concern with NFP4000/6000 cards, and older management
> > > firmware on NFP3800, multiple ports sharing single PF is still supported
> > > with this change. Whether it's multi-PF setup or single-PF setup is
> > > determined by management firmware, and driver will notify the
> > > application firmware of the setup so that both are well handled.  
> > 
> > So every PF will have its own devlink instance?
> > Can you show devlink dev info output?  
> 
> Yes, here it is:

>   serial_number UKAAMDA2000-100122190023

>   serial_number UKAAMDA2000-100122190023

Since it's clearly a single ASIC shouldn't it have a single devlink
instance?