> -----Original Message----- > From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 3:47 AM > To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; > kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx; leon@xxxxxxxxxx; cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx; Jiri Pirko > <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/19] devlink: Introduce mdev port flavour > > Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:31:02AM CET, parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 8:20 PM > >> To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > >> kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Saeed Mahameed > >> <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx; leon@xxxxxxxxxx; > >> cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx; Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux- > >> rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/19] devlink: Introduce mdev port > >> flavour > >> > >> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 01:44:53 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > >> > > I'm talking about netlink attributes. I'm not suggesting to > >> > > sprintf it all into the phys_port_name. > >> > > > >> > I didn't follow your comment. For devlink port show command output > >> > you said, > >> > > >> > "Surely those devices are anchored in on of the PF (or possibly > >> > VFs) that should be exposed here from the start." > >> > So I was trying to explain why we don't expose PF/VF detail in the > >> > port attributes which contains > >> > (a) flavour > >> > (b) netdev representor (name derived from phys_port_name) > >> > (c) mdev alias > >> > > >> > Can you please describe which netlink attribute I missed? > >> > >> Identification of the PCI device. The PCI devices are not linked to > >> devlink ports, so the sysfs hierarchy (a) is irrelevant, (b) may not > >> be visible in multi- host (or SmartNIC). > >> > > > >It's the unique mdev device alias. It is not right to attach to the PCI device. > >Mdev is bus in itself where devices are identified uniquely. So an alias > suffice that identity. > > Wait a sec. For mdev, what you say is correct. But here we talk about > devlink_port which is representing this mdev. And this devlink_port is very > similar to VF devlink_port. It is bound to specific PF (in case of mdev it could > be PF-VF). > But mdev port has unique phys_port_name in system, it incorrect to use PF/VF prefix. What in hypothetical case, mdev is not on top of PCI...
