On 18/08/2022 10:56, Marcin Szycik wrote: > On 15-Aug-22 16:22, ecree@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> Just as each port of a Linux-controlled >> +switch has a separate netdev, so each virtual function has one. When the system > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but this sentence seems a bit confusing. Maybe: > "Just as each port of a Linux-controlled switch has a separate netdev, each virtual > function has one."? Kuba wrote this paragraph and tbh it makes sense to me. But how about "Just as each port of a Linux-controlled switch has a separate netdev, so does each virtual function."? >> +As a simple example, if ``eth0`` is the master PF's netdevice and ``eth1`` is a >> +VF representor, the following rules:: >> + >> + tc filter add dev eth1 parent ffff: protocol ipv4 flower \ >> + action mirred egress redirect dev eth0 >> + tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ipv4 flower \ >> + action mirred egress mirror dev eth1 > > Perhaps eth0/eth1 names could be replaced with more meaningful names, as it's easy > to confuse them now. How about examples from above (e.g. PF -> eth4, PR -> eth4pf1vf2rep)? > Or just $PF_NETDEV, $PR_NETDEV. Yeah, I can replace them with $VARIABLES. -ed
