Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 05:43:43PM CET, parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> 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? >> >Because mdev device already identified using its unique alias. Why does it need prefix? >Mdev core generating the alias is not aware of the prefixes applied devlink. it shouldn't be. >We want more letters towards uniqueness of the alias and filling it up with such prefixes doesn't make sense. mdev belongs undev pf/vf, no matter how uniqueue the name/alias is. Well, I don't really need those in the phys_port_name, mainly simply because they would not fit. However, I believe that you should fillup the PF/VF devlink netlink attrs. Note that we are not talking here about the actual mdev, but rather devlink_port associated with this mdev. And devlink port should have this info. > >> >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? >Yes, it will be. But just because it is on top of something, doesn't mean we include the whole parent dev, its bridge, its rc hierarchy here. >There should be a need. >It was needed in PF/VF case due to overlapping numbers of VFs via single devlink instance. You probably missed my reply to Jakub. Sure. Again, I don't really care about having that in phys_port_name. But please fillup the attrs. >Here it is no overlap. >
