On 2/2/2012 12:50 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:46:57AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote: >> On 2/1/2012 11:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:30:24AM -0800, Roopa Prabhu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/17/11 4:15 PM, "Ben Hutchings" <bhutchings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. >>>> >>>> Yes agreed. I have the same concern. >>> >>> So it seems that we need to extend the existing interface to allow >>> tweaking filters per VF. Does it need to block this >>> patchset though? After all, we'll need to support the existing >> >> hmm not sure I follow what patchset is this blocking? > > The one you are replying to. Gotcha that would seem OK to me although I think you can avoid it altogether. .John -- 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
