Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 04:45:06PM CET, parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> -----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. Why incorrect? It is always bound to pf/vf? >What in hypothetical case, mdev is not on top of PCI... Okay, let's go hypothetical. In that case, it is going to be on top of something else, wouldn't it?
