On 11/17/2011 4:44 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 16:32 -0800, Greg Rose wrote:
On 11/17/2011 4:15 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Sorry to come to this rather late.
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 23:55 -0800, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
[...]
v2 -> v3
- Moved set and get filter ops from rtnl_link_ops to netdev_ops
- Support for SRIOV VFs.
[Note: The get filters msg (in the way current get rtnetlink handles
it) might get too big for SRIOV vfs. This patch follows existing sriov
vf get code and tries to accomodate filters for all VF's in a PF.
And for the SRIOV case I have only tested the fact that the VF
arguments are getting delivered to rtnetlink correctly. The code
follows existing sriov vf handling code so rest of it should work fine]
[...]
This is already broken for large numbers of VFs, and increasing the
amount of information per VF is going to make the situation worse. I am
no netlink expert but I think that the current approach of bundling all
information about an interface in a single message may not be
sustainable.
Also, I'm unclear on why this interface is to be used to set filtering
for the (PF) net device as well as for related VFs. Doesn't that
duplicate the functionality of ndo_set_rx_mode and
ndo_vlan_rx_{add,kill}_vid?
Functionally yes but contextually no. This allows the PF driver to know
that it is setting these filters in the context of the existence of VFs,
allowing it to take appropriate action. The other two functions may be
called without the presence of SR-IOV enablement and the existence of VFs.
Anyway, that's why I asked Roopa to add that capability.
I don't follow. The PF driver already knows whether it has enabled VFs.
How do filters set this way interact with filters set through the
existing operations? Should they override promiscuous mode? None of
this has been specified.
Promiscuous mode is exactly the issue this feature is intended for. I'm
not familiar with the solarflare device but Intel HW promiscuous mode is
only promiscuous on the physical port, not on the VEB. So a packet sent
from a VF will not be captured by the PF across the VEB unless the MAC
and VLAN filters have been programmed into the HW. So you may not need
the feature for your devices but it is required for Intel devices. And
it's a fairly simple request, just allow -1 to indicate that the target
of the filter requests is for the PF itself. Using the already existing
set_rx_mode function wont' work because the PF driver will look at it
and figure it's in promiscuous mode anyway, so it won't set the filters
into the HW. At least that is how it is in the case of our HW and
driver. Again, the behavior of your HW and driver is unknown to me and
thus you may not require this feature.
- Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
