On 2025/1/15 19:53, Guangguan Wang wrote: > > > On 2025/1/14 20:07, Halil Pasic wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 13:43:44 +0800 >> Guangguan Wang <guangguan.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> I think I showed a valid and practical setup that would break with your >>>> patch as is. Do you agree with that statement? >>> Did you mean >>> " >>> Now for something like a bond of two OSA >>> interfaces, I would expect the two legs of the bond to probably have a >>> "HW PNETID", but the netdev representing the bond itself won't have one >>> unless the Linux admin defines a software PNETID, which is work, and >>> can't have a HW PNETID because it is a software construct within Linux. >>> Breaking for example an active-backup bond setup where the legs have >>> HW PNETIDs and the admin did not bother to specify a PNETID for the bond >>> is not acceptable. >>> " ? >>> If the legs have HW pnetids, add pnetid to bond netdev will fail as >>> smc_pnet_add_eth will check whether the base_ndev already have HW pnetid. >>> >>> If the legs without HW pnetids, and admin add pnetids to legs through smc_pnet. >>> Yes, my patch will break the setup. What Paolo suggests(both checking ndev and >>> base_ndev, and replace || by && )can help compatible with the setup. >> >> I'm glad we agree on that part. Things are much more acceptable if we >> are doing both base and ndev. > It is also acceptable for me. > >> Nevertheless I would like to understand >> your problem better, and talk about it to my team. I will also ask some >> questions in another email. > Questions are welcome. > >> >> That said having things work differently if there is a HW PNETID on >> the base, and different if there is none is IMHO wonky and again >> asymmetric. >> >> Imagine the following you have your nice little setup with a PNETID on >> a non-leaf and a base_ndev that has no PNETID. Then your HW admin >> configures a PNETID to your base_ndev, a different one. Suddenly >> your ndev PNETID is ignored for reasons not obvious to you. Yes it is >> similar to having a software PNETID on the base_ndev and getting it >> overruled by a HW PNETID, but much less obvious IMHO. I am wondering if there are any scenarios that require setting different > pnetids for different net devices in one netdev hierarchy. If no, maybe > we should limit that only one pnetid can be set to one netdev hierarchy. > >> I also think >> a software PNETID of the base should probably take precedence over over >> the software pnetid of ndev. > Agree! > > Thanks, > Guangguan Wang >> >> Regards, >> Halil Hi Halil, Are there any questions or further discussions about this patch? If no, I will send a v2 patch, in which software pnetid will be searched in both base_ndev and ndev, and base_ndev will take precedence over ndev. Thanks, Guangguan Wang
