On 07/20/2012 11:27 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 07/17/2012 03:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Chris Friesen<chris.friesen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:08:45 -0600
From that perspective a sysfs-based interface is ideal since it is
directly scriptable.
As is anything ethtool or netlink based, since we have 'ethtool'
and 'ip' for scripting.
I'm not picky...whatever works.
To me the act of creating virtual functions seems generic enough (I'm aware of SR-IOV capable storage controllers, I'm sure there is other hardware as well) that ethtool/ip don't really seem like the most appropriate tools for the job.
Yes, and then there are 'other network' controllers too ... IB which I don't know if it adheres to ethtool, since it's not an Ethernet device ... isn't that why they call it Infiniband ... ;-) )
In the telecom space, they use NTBs and PCI as a 'network' ... I know, not common in Linux space, and VFs in that space aren't being discussed (that I've ever heard), but another example where 'network' != Ethernet, so ethtool doesn't solve PCI-level configuration/use.
So, VFs are a PCI defined entity, so their enable/disablement should be handled by PCI.
Conversely, when dealing with networking attributes of a PCI-VF ethernet-nic, networking tools should be used, not PCI tools.
I would have thought it would make more sense as a generic PCI functionality, in which case I'm not aware of an existing binary tool that would be a logical choice to extend.
Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
