Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 07:23:44PM CET, parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >[..] >> 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. >> >Ah ok. but than that would be optional attribute? >Because you can have non pci based mdev, though it doesn't exist today along with devlink to my knowledge. Non-optional now. We can always change the code to not fill it up or fill up another attr instead. no UAPI harm.
