> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 7:28 AM > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:06:02 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote: > > > > Subfunction support is discussed in detail in RFC [1] and [2]. > > > > RFC [1] and extension [2] describes requirements, design, and > > > > proposed plumbing using devlink, auxiliary bus and sysfs for > > > > systemd/udev support. > > > > > > So we're going to have two ways of adding subdevs? Via devlink and > > > via the new vdpa netlink thing? Nop. Subfunctions (subdevs) are added only one way, i.e. devlink port as settled in RFC [1]. Just to refresh all our memory, we discussed and settled on the flow in [2]; RFC [1] followed this discussion. vdpa tool of [3] can add one or more vdpa device(s) on top of already spawned PF, VF, SF device. > > > > Via devlink you add the Sub-function bus device - think of it as > > spawning a new VF - but has no actual characteristics > > (netdev/vpda/rdma) "yet" until user admin decides to load an interface > > on it via aux sysfs. > > By which you mean it doesn't get probed or the device type is not set (IOW it can > still become a block device or netdev depending on the vdpa request)? > > > Basically devlink adds a new eswitch port (the SF port) and loading > > the drivers and the interfaces is done via the auxbus subsystem only > > after the SF is spawned by FW. > > But why? > > Is this for the SmartNIC / bare metal case? The flow for spawning on the local > host gets highly convoluted. > The flow of spawning for (a) local host or (b) for external host controller from smartnic is same. $ devlink port add.. [..] Followed by $ devlink port function set state... Only change would be to specify the destination where to spawn it. (controller number, pf, sf num etc) Please refer to the detailed examples in individual patch. Patch 12 and 13 mostly covers the complete view. > > > Also could you please wrap your code at 80 chars? > > > > I prefer no to do this in mlx5, in mlx5 we follow a 95 chars rule. > > But if you insist :) .. > > Oh yeah, I meant the devlink patches! May I ask why? Past few devlink patches [4] followed 100 chars rule. When did we revert back to 80? If so, any pointers to the thread for 80? checkpatch.pl with --strict mode didn't complain me when I prepared the patches. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200519092258.GF4655@nanopsycho/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200324132044.GI20941@xxxxxxxx/ [3] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/2020-November/050623.html [4] commits dc64cc7c6310, 77069ba2e3ad, a1e8ae907c8d, 2a916ecc4056, ba356c90985d
